Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

Nursery Vouchers

Mrs. Organ: To ask the secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the nursery voucher scheme. [188]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): We have done an assessment and have found that the bureaucratic and administrative costs of the voucher scheme are unacceptable, that the loss of places in the voluntary sector and the closure of private providers are unacceptable and that, therefore, the voucher scheme urgently needs review.

Mrs. Organ: I offer my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on his appointment. I thank him for his reply. It has, indeed, been a damaging scheme. It has caused early years education providers in the Forest of Dean huge amounts of unnecessary work, while not extending provision, and it has caused the closure of an excellent playgroup in Churcham. What assurances can my hon. Friend give parents and providers in England that we will soon be rid of the scheme?

Mr. Blunkett: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the voucher scheme will end as from the end of the summer term this year. The ill-conceived scheme will be set aside in favour of a new start for early years education based on a partnership between the voluntary, private and education authority sectors, which will work together to draw up development plans at local level and to ensure that, instead of bureaucracy, we can provide free places for all four-year-olds and eventually for all three-year-olds as well. The money will be ring-fenced; that provision will be based on the development plans put to the Department so that we can establish early years forums in which all people can play their part in fulfilling their pledge to give children free places rather than a paper promise.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and his team on their new positions. I hope that they enjoy their work at the Department for Education and Employment.
The right hon. Gentleman will know by now through departmental briefing that the administrative costs of the nursery voucher scheme amount to just £5 million. Would he like to tell the House how many places for four-year-olds that sum will deliver and how soon and how far it will take the right hon. Gentleman towards the guarantee of a place for all 600,000 four-year-olds?

Mr. Blunkett: I thank the right hon. Lady for her normal courtesy and welcome her back to the Commons. I hope that I can return the courtesy that she paid me.—[Interruption.] Which she did.
The voucher scheme's bureaucracy is more than simply the £5 million to which the right hon. Lady referred. The £3 million alone that went on advertising the scheme has already been spent, but the new money that was allocated and will be applied directly to the provision of free places is available to us. Therefore, from September we hope to make substantial progress towards the guarantee that we have given, on which the previous Prime Minister reneged, of a free place for all four-year-olds.

Dr. George Turner: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his appointment and on his statement to the House today. I am sure that he will be well aware that the people of Norfolk who participated in the piloting of the nursery scheme will be highly delighted to see it abandoned. As the former chair of the education committee in Norfolk, I know that, although some good was done, the special circumstances meant that there was considerable waste. Will my right hon. Friend please repeat today the promise that he has made in the past to ensure that the people of Norfolk are not put at any disadvantage because they participated in the piloting of the scheme?

Mr. Blunkett: I am delighted to give my hon. Friend the assurance that all existing places will be safeguarded so that those who have redeemed vouchers will be able to carry them through into the autumn where places exist this summer, as part of the new partnership with the voluntary and private sector. What is more, we will start the process of piloting early years centres to draw together nursery education and early years care and ensure that parents are involved in the process of family learning.

Grant-maintained Schools

Mr. Brady: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will approve outstanding applications for grant-maintained status. [191]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Estelle Morris): Outstanding applications for grant-maintained status will be considered on their individual merits and will be decided as soon as possible.

Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Lady guarantee that the grant-maintained schools that are currently in place and those that are due to be approved will continue to be free to set their own admissions policy?

Ms Morris: We are keen to raise standards for everyone, and the key to that is to put aside the arguments on structure and begin to look at what goes on in the


classroom in terms of the quality of teaching and learning. We can guarantee that all schools will flourish under Labour under the new partnership that we have set out in our document.
No good school has any need to fear Labour's proposals. I can tell grant-maintained schools and those currently in the local authority sector that we will work with them to raise standards for the children they serve.

Mr. Miller: Will my hon. Friend congratulate the parents of Meadow County primary school in my constituency who, in the heat of the general election campaign, decided by two votes to one against going grant-maintained? Will she encourage those few governors who are still trying to fight a rearguard action against the democratic wishes of the majority of the parents to realise that their efforts will be wasted?

Ms Morris: I am happy to congratulate my hon. Friend's school on the good quality of education that it provides for the pupils whom it serves. I hope that the school will now concentrate, as it no doubt has done in the past, on standards and put behind it the divisiveness that is a feature of many grant-maintained school ballots.

Sir Peter Emery: Does the hon. Lady understand that her statement is already hollow, because the Government have closed Mount St. Mary's school in Exeter? The previous Secretary of State pledged that it would be given grant-maintained status, but that is now being refused by the current Minister's colleagues. That means that the letter sent to parents which stated that there would be places for all children at the school is completely false. Today, parents have been approaching me and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) as they try to find places for their children. When will the Labour party realise that closing good schools is a falsehood?

Ms Morris: I fear that the right hon. Gentleman is misguided in his comments; if he consults his right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Education and Employment, he will be told that no decision was given on the school to which he referred.
I should like to reiterate my main answer that every application for grant-maintained status will be decided on its merits. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the statement made yesterday and he will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also announced that grant-maintained status would be given to Westoning school in Bedfordshire. We are absolutely intent on judging the merits of a case when deciding on the future status of schools.

Education Authorities (Emergency Finance)

Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has for providing emergency finance for education authorities to prevent any increase in class sizes in the current year. [192]

The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): We have no such proposals. The funding that schools receive this year has been based on decisions made by the previous Administration. However, we shall

introduce a Bill later today that will lead to a reduction in class size for every five, six and seven-year-old in the country.

Mr. Mitchell: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment.
Given his visit to Grimsby during the election campaign, he will know that a Labour local authority, North East Lincolnshire, which attaches the highest priority to education, as the Government do, has been forced to cut spending on education, with the result that we will lose 100 teachers by September. We already have 196 primary classes with more than 30 pupils and that number will now increase. Such class sizes arise directly from the underfunding of the unitary authorities by the previous Administration.
Will my hon. Friend open discussions with his colleagues at the Departments of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what can be done about that underfunding? Will he meet a deputation from North East Lincolnshire to see what can be done to stop further cuts in education?

Mr. Byers: I can give my hon. Friend two assurances. First, I would be more than willing to meet a deputation led by him and including representatives from North East Lincolnshire. Secondly, there is no doubt that particular difficulties are being experienced by unitary authorities. We have begun a review of the education element of the standard spending assessment, to ensure that the distribution of that grant is far fairer than it was under the previous Administration. I am confident that, in the process of doing that, we will be able to offer some hope to unitary authorities such as North East Lincolnshire.

Mr. Don Foster: I welcome the Minister to his first outing at the Dispatch Box. I reiterate my congratulations to him and the rest of his team.
Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the reply he has just given offers no hope to schools throughout the country? Will not class sizes continue to increase this year as teachers continue to lose their jobs? Does the Minister further acknowledge that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced clearly in the House that it is the Government's intention to stick to departmental control limits for at least the next two years, he is offering no hope to schools for the next two or three years?
Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the strange anomaly of the Government's amazing hyperactivity with regard to legislation and changes to the Bank of England, while there is a total lack of any promise to provide more resources to schools?

Mr. Byers: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his initial comments. He has rehearsed an argument put to the British people in the run-up to the general election on 1 May. The British people spoke on that day. We have made education our No. 1 priority—which is why, 21 days after polling day, we have announced the abolition of the nursery voucher scheme and why today we are introducing a Bill to reduce class sizes. This Government are taking positive action to benefit all our children, rather than using warm words which would no nothing to help them.

Kate Hoey: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new position. I thank him and his team for sending help squads


into two schools in my constituency. I know that that will be welcomed by the parents, the pupils and all those involved in the schools.
I understand that class size is a problem, but in my borough an even bigger problem is the number of young people—more than 300—who are out of school, playing truant or excluded, but who do not have any opportunity to get any help. Even at this stage, the local authority is closing the Orchard centre. Do the Government have any plans to do something about providing out-of-school places for those children, who are becoming totally involved in crime and therefore contributing to the huge amount of crime in the area?

Mr. Byers: I thank my hon. Friend for her initial comments. When I meet Lambeth local education authority in the next two weeks to discuss the question of failing schools within that authority, I will also raise the issue of children who are disenchanted with the education currently offered to them.
The Government have made a commitment to offer education to all our children. No child should be excluded. In particular, we are looking at the ways in which finance from the lottery can be used to help the sort of young people to whom my hon. Friend referred.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: What contribution to a reduction in class sizes in grant-maintained schools will be made by the Minister's proposal to remove 10 per cent. of their funding?

Mr. Byers: I am afraid that the right hon. Lady is wrong about our policy. There is no commitment to reduce by 10 per cent. the delegation of funding to grant-maintained schools. When we publish our White Paper in June, she will find our proposals for that specific area very informative.
It ill becomes a former Secretary of State for Education and Employment to talk about increasing class sizes when, under her Administration, an additional 115,000 children under seven were in classes of more than 30. That is the right hon. Lady's record. She did nothing to deal with the problem. Today, after just 21 days in office, this Government are introducing a Bill to resolve that problem

Age Discrimination

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement about Government policy on legislation to combat age discrimination in employment. [193]

The Minister for Employment and Disability Rights (Mr. Andrew Smith): The Government are strongly opposed to age discrimination at work. We shall be consulting widely to obtain a consensus on how we can best proceed to achieve that.

Mr. Winnick: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment. As there is no age discrimination in this place—there are hon. Members of 24 years of age and upwards, and I shall not mention my own age—why should age discrimination be allowed to continue? It undoubtedly causes much hardship among those in their

40s and early 50s who find tremendous difficulties in getting another job and are discriminated against simply because of their age. As we promised legislation and I introduced a private Member's Bill which was wrecked by the Opposition, would my right hon. Friend agree that a law should now be passed in much the same way as we legislated against discrimination on grounds of race, gender and disability?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right to say that discrimination on the ground of age must be ended, and he is right to say that the role of legislation must be examined. I pay tribute to the efforts that he has made and the energy he has expended on campaigning to end discrimination on the ground of age. Before we proceed to legislate, we shall need to consult interested parties, groups that would be affected, including those representing elderly people, employers and those with expertise such as my hon. Friend. We strongly believe that age discrimination is wrong, and we shall implement proposals to stop it, with the support, I hope, of the vast majority of hon. Members.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment to the Front Bench and on his rapid reversal of the Labour Government's pledge to legislate. I warn him that the legislative route, while seeming attractive, has many pitfalls. Someone has to be 21 years of age to enter the House, but that age limit would be illegal under such legislation, as might requiring people to retire at 65. I urge the right hon. Gentleman genuinely to consult rather than to go straight ahead with the proposals of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).

Mr. Smith: We certainly shall consult. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. He is right to say that the subject involves many complexities, but there were complexities relating to legislation against racial and sexual discrimination—arguments similar to those that he advanced were used against such legislation. The fact that the matter is complex is an argument for careful consideration and consultation, but it is not an argument for doing nothing.

International Labour Organisation

Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to support the work of the International Labour Organisation. [194]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Alan Howarth): My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be representing the United Kingdom at the annual ILO conference next month. We shall give the ILO full support for its activities, particularly its promotion of international labour standards and human rights.

Mr. MacShane: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment as Minister and on his election as Member of Parliament for the great steel-producing town of Newport. You and I, Madam Speaker, who have held only one party card in our lives, will know how difficult it is to switch to another party. After the putsch by the


old Etonians and anti-Europeans of the 1922 Committee yesterday, may I invite the remaining one-nation and pro-European Tories to come across and join us before it is too late?
I welcome my hon. Friend's strong statement in favour of the ILO, particularly as only two years ago the Conservative party, when in government, sought to take Britain out of it. It now needs a British-led agenda on employability, not over-regulation. We need a strong ministerial presence in the ILO. Britain has not had that presence in recent years; such a presence will give the ILO new leadership from a new Government—leadership which it needs and to which he and other Ministers can contribute.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Howarth: With friends such as my hon. Friend, it is so much easier. Of course the United Kingdom should support the International Labour Organisation, whose aims are to encourage productive employment and to improve standards and conditions of work worldwide.

Mr. Forth: Rubbish.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman says that is rubbish, but he will now have plenty of time on his hands to reconsider the simple view that deregulation to the ultimate degree, a cult of low pay and the absence of employee rights lead to some sort of economic nirvana. That view has been extensively disproved in the Conservative experiment of recent years, in which the poor and the unemployed in this country have been the victims.

Youth Training

6. Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has for increasing opportunities for training for people between 16 and 20 years of age; and if he will make a statement. [195]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): We have a wide range of proposals for improving young people's participation in high-quality education and training. In England, as in Wales, the Government will take these forward in a positive and open manner.

Mr. Llwyd: I congratulate the Minister on his appointment and wish him well in post. Obviously, it should be a priority to get youngsters back into work, and one avenue for doing so is through high-quality training. May I remind the Minister that there are some places in Wales where youth unemployment is as high as 33 per cent? May I therefore urge on him the need for quick and telling action in this particular field?

Dr. Howells: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I am very much aware of the problems of youth unemployment, especially in his constituency, which suffered the closure of the Trawsfynydd nuclear power station and a number of other staple employers in the area. Under our new deal arrangements, we shall put 13,000 young people either to work in the voluntary sector or

into high-quality training and education opportunities; and we shall make sure that the problems he has outlined will be addressed very quickly. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is well aware of the situation in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and he has told me himself that he will pay special attention to it very quickly.

Mr. Barry Jones: After such welcome training, does my hon. Friend believe that there is a real chance under his policies of future jobs in manufacturing?

Dr. Howells: In Wales, we have been fortunate in attracting a great deal of inward investment, especially in the manufacturing sector. That is due mainly to the setting up of the Welsh Development Agency, which Labour set up and which the Tories opposed right from the beginning. We recognise that, in order for us to take that forward, to attract more investment and to do something that the last Government were incapable of doing—grow indigenous industry in Wales—the next tranche of investment will go to the best trained, best educated work force, and that is what we aim to create.

Mr. Paice: I add my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on his assumption of his new responsibilities. His and the Labour party's determination to reduce unemployment among young people is an entirely admirable aim; however, when he spends the money from the windfall tax, how many real jobs will that create? How many other people will lose their jobs because of job substitution? How many of those young people will end up back on the dole, because the voluntary force that he has decided on will not create a single job?

Dr. Howells: It is rather ripe for former Tory Ministers to get up and talk about people going back on the dole, after the carnage that they created in constituencies like mine over many years, when unemployment rose to more than 3 million and probably to more than 4 million. I will tell you this—

Madam Speaker: Order. This is not an election campaign.

Dr. Howells: I beg your pardon, Madam Speaker—I forgot myself for a moment.
I tell the hon. Gentleman this: we shall not allow people to languish on the dole: we shall use the windfall tax to get young people off the dole and back into work. That is the whole idea of it; if the hon. Gentleman has not grasped that yet, he had better do so soon, because it is going to happen.

School Buildings

Mr. Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he intends to take to allow local authorities greater freedom to tackle the backlog of repairs to school buildings. [196]

Mr. Blunkett: We greatly sympathise with the position in which schools and colleges throughout the country find themselves, with a legacy of more than £3 billion of disrepair. Shortly we shall make proposals for a


public-private partnership, based on a consortium of local education authorities, schools and financial institutions, which will free the money to tackle that backlog and ensure that our teachers and pupils have an environment fit to work in.

Mr. Baker: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Is he aware that he has inherited a terrible situation from the previous, Conservative, Government, in that one in five secondary schools and one in seven primary schools have substandard accommodation? In my constituency, Lewes, at Wivelsfield primary school, more than 60 per cent. of children are in so-called temporary buildings—ramshackle buildings that have been up for more than 10 years. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that reliance on public-private projects alone will not necessarily produce the answer? Can he estimate the likely value of private finance initiative projects to repair crumbling buildings in the next 12 months?

Mr. Blunkett: I agree with the first part of the question. There is a chronic situation in schools throughout the country, with leaking roofs, window frames that do not fit, temporary classrooms that have been temporary for the best part of 40 or 50 years and remaining outside toilets. We are determined to tackle that backlog and that legacy. We shall have a considered programme, which we shall want to discuss with the local authorities and the financial institutions. I of course accept that that will not be the sole answer to the question; we must apply existing capital resources and permission to borrow sensitively and carefully, to ensure that, together, the partnership and the borrowing requirement enable us to tackle that backlog during the present Parliament.

Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the second part of his answer today—PFI plus borrowing requirement—is an essential part of the attempt to solve that problem? It is a particular problem for flat-top schools built in the 1960s and 1970s and it is a considerable problem for schools in the voluntary sector. Will he ensure that representatives of the voluntary sector are included in any decisions?

Mr. Blunkett: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. The flat roofs that exist throughout the country are a bit like the flat earth policy of the Conservative party—it has many leaks in it and consequently requires urgent repair. The need for repair exists regardless of the status of school or its category in terms of aid, and we shall discuss, with the Churches and others, ways in which they might join the partnership and work with us to tackle that backlog of disrepair.

Sir Patrick Cormack: How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to tackle authorities like Islington, which, whatever the date of their buildings, provide a lamentable education?

Mr. Blunkett: After 18 years of Conservative rule—[Interruption.] After 18 years of Conservative rule at national level, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in the first three weeks in government, we have acted decisively where failure exists to ensure that every child in every school—in Islington and elsewhere—receives the standard and quality of education that we would expect for our own children.

Assisted Places Scheme

Ms Jane Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money will be available for reducing class sizes through the phasing out of the assisted places scheme. [197]

Mr. Blunkett: One hundred and eighty million pounds will be available over time as a result of the phasing out of the assisted places scheme, which is in the forward public expenditure survey predictions inherited from the previous Government, £100 million of which will be available by the year 2000 to be used to reduce class sizes and fulfil our pledge.

Ms Griffiths: Does the Secretary of State agree that his reply represents tremendously good news for schools throughout the country—[Laughter.]—not least for schools in Reading, East, the constituency that I represent? Redlands county primary school in Reading now has two reception classes where it had three, and five-year-olds are being taught in classes of 36 and 37.

Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend and congratulate her on her question. One can see why Conservative Members are so depleted—they laugh at the prospect of £100 million being spent in the next three years on reducing class sizes which, under their regime, went up in the primary sector by a staggering 40 per cent. in terms of those taught in classes of more than 30. It is a measure of the despair of Conservative Members that they think it is funny that children are taught in large classes.

Mr. David Heath: We welcome any additional money for schools, but will the Secretary of State explain how a substantial reduction in class sizes will take place in Somerset if his right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions imposes the iniquitous Conservative capping proposals on the county and 90 teachers are sacked?

Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my party made no promises that we could not fulfil. I have stated clearly what the situation will be for the current financial year and we intend to treat all local authorities with fairness. Each of them knew what the situation was and, regrettably, will have to plan on a budget that was not of our making and in circumstances which we hope to reverse during the lifetime of this Parliament.

Mr. Grocott: Does my right hon. Friend remember being told ad nauseam by the previous Government that, contrary to the common sense of most of the people of this country and to the views of parents everywhere, the size of classes in schools was of no importance? If any civil servants in his Department still give advice to that effect, will he send them away on a retraining course—preferably in small groups?

Mr. Blunkett: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we are strongly in favour of small groups of people concentrating their minds on the agenda of the new Government, rather than that of the old. I can also confirm.


that class sizes make a difference, and that is why some people choose to spend a great deal of their own money on buying smaller class sizes in the private sector.

Mrs. Gillan: I would like a direct answer to a direct question. Some 36,000 of our brightest children will be robbed by this Government of a future assisted place scheme. What will it cost to educate those children back in the state sector?

Mr. Blunkett: I can promise the hon. Lady one thing—there will be a great deal more straight talking and straight answers from this Government than there ever was when she and her colleagues answered questions. The assisted places scheme was not geared to the brightest in the country—the brightest in the country exist in all schools and deserve a good education. There is a profound difference in values between the parties.
We do not believe that we should abandon the state education system, nor do we believe that it is inherently so poor that we have to allow—in the words of the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)—children to escape from it. We believe in investing to ensure that all children have an opportunity to experience the highest standards of education from the time that they enter school, so that not 36,000 but 7 million children benefit from the education system

Information Technology

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to extend the use of information technology in higher education. [198]

Dr. Howells: We shall be looking to the Dearing inquiry to take into account the new possibilities opened up by information technology in its recommendations on the future development and delivery of higher education.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I welcome my hon. Friend to his post? I hope that, within the Department for which he has responsibility, there is appreciation of the original thinking that he will bring to its work. Is not the reality that any growth in higher education in the United Kingdom will not now come by way of expanding existing single-site universities, but by developing information technology in higher education and distance learning in the way that—I might say modestly—I suggested in my proposals for a university of the lakes two years ago? What is the Government's position on the matter?

Dr. Howells: I recall the impressive report which my hon. Friend circulated on the university of the lakes and on the state of higher and further education in Cumbria. I hope that we can now revisit it, because he is right about the need for new approaches to the delivery of education at all levels, especially further and higher education. He will understand, however, that we cannot comment specifically on any project, given that Sir Ron Dearing's inquiry will soon report to the House.

Mr. Boswell: Although I welcome the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to the Front Bench and, even in respect of this question, welcome some aspects of their answers,

does he agree that information technology should be the practice of all engaged in higher education, including the humanities and more obvious subjects? Will he undertake to take a sympathetic line, subject to the Dearing recommendations, in respect of access and outreach, with particular reference to remote rural areas?

Dr. Howells: I should like to agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said. The opportunity now available for the delivery of higher and further education, especially to remote rural areas, is tremendous. The sooner we get on with it, the better.

Schools (Quality Assurance)

Mr. Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what policies his Department is considering to ensure that quality assurance is focused more on children within schools than between schools. [199]

Ms Estelle Morris: The Government's overriding priority is to raise standards of achievement for every pupil, hence the clear targets that we have set for improvements in literacy and numeracy. However, we shall achieve those targets only if the weakest schools improve to the level of the better schools.

Mr. Connarty: I welcome my hon. Friend on her appointment from the chalk face to ministerial office and, at the same time, welcome the Government's special measures action recovery team to deal with failing schools and to help them to succeed, underlining that everything about this team is SMART. Does my hon. Friend share the concerns expressed that under the previous Government judgments on failing schools were made too late? Does she accept that local authorities' quality assurance processes and schools' internal quality assurance systems must be strengthened to deal with problems in schools?

Ms Morris: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments and for welcoming the SMART programme. He is absolutely right. This week, the Government took action in respect of 18 schools that had been failing pupils for at least 18 months. The previous Government had taken no action to ensure that those schools improved. We should aim to have no schools failing pupils and to identify problems before that happens so that improvements can be made. One of the problems with the system has always been that, whereas an external inspection system can identify weaknesses, there has been no programme of support for schools that are in that position. That is exactly the area with which we wish to deal in the forthcoming months.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Are not parents—and tax payers, too, for that matter—entitled to know about the relative performance of different schools? I accept that it may be uncomfortable for a school to come low in a league table, but at least it is identified as being in need of some assistance.

Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman is right. All parents have the right to know how their children perform, whether they are reaching the targets rightly set for them and how the school is performing. Parents also want to


know that, if there are problems in the school and the school is not achieving at the level expected, action will be taken. That key element has been missing from the system so far. We have made it clear that we will not accept failure in any school, no matter where it is. All the partners in the education service—school governing bodies, local authorities, central Government and parent—must now accept their responsibility for ensuring that we raise standards for all children in our schools.

Mr. Steinberg: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her appointment, which she fully deserves. However, why was it necessary to publish the names of those failing schools? I am all in favour of help being given to failing schools but I cannot understand why those schools' names had to be published because it decreases the teachers' morale and I do not believe that it is necessary

Ms Morris: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments and note the "however" that followed thereafter. It will have come as no news to anyone in the communities served by the schools that their school was failing. Parents, head teachers, governors and local authorities will have known for at least 18 months and, in some cases, for as long as two years, that their school was not up to scratch so the public airing of the school's name was not new.
It is important to state that that gave a clear message from the new Government that we will not tolerate failure. Not only that, but where schools are not delivering the goods, we will accept our responsibility to support them in raising standards. I know that my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that this Government offered help to the schools that are struggling, and did not just criticise them. A task force will go in to help, and I hope that many of the schools will take up our offer of an experienced adviser to help them tackle the problems that they face.

Grant Maintained Schools Foundation

Sir David Madel: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are his reasons for proposing to abolish the Grant Maintained Schools Foundation. [200]

Mr. Byers: The Grant Maintained Schools Foundation is a private company and its future is a matter for its directors.

Sir David Madel: Subject to parental support, do grant-maintained schools have a permanent place in the education service?

Mr. Byers: We made it clear in the run-up to the general election that we want to introduce a new structure into our school system, under which all schools will be treated fairly. A White Paper will be published in June which will give effect to those proposals. The Government's priority, however, is not to concentrate on structures, as did the previous Administration, which gave £2.5 million of taxpayers' money to the Grant Maintained Schools foundation—enough to pay the salaries of 100 primary school teachers. Our priority is to ensure that we improve the standards and quality of education that we offer to all our children.

Educational Scholarships

Mr. Chope: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his Department's policy towards educational scholarships. [201]

Ms Estelle Morris: Scholarships are a matter for those organisations that award them.

Mr. Chope: I thank the hon. Lady for that helpful reply. Will she join me in congratulating Charles Mannon, the candidate that the Labour party put up in the Christchurch constituency in the general election, on the exemplary conduct that he displayed during the campaign? Does she agree that Mr. Mannon, who was educated at a public school with the benefit of an assisted place, is a supreme example of the value of the assisted places scheme, and of educational state scholarships?

Ms Morris: I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Mr. Mannon on his behaviour during the general election campaign. I am only sorry that I cannot congratulate him on being in the House today. The Government are far more intent on the educational future of the children who are now at school than we are on the educational past of Labour party candidates.

Youth Unemployment

Miss Oona King: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of young people who have been unemployed for over six months who will be helped off welfare and into work. [202]

Mr. Andrew Smith: At present there are 178,000 people aged between 18 and 24 who have been claimants, unemployed for longer than six months. In addition, on current trends, we envisage that each month around 25,000 young people reach the six-months threshold. The Government's commitment is to get 250,000 young people off benefits and into work.

Miss King: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, which is most welcome. Nowhere is that news more urgently needed than in my constituency, Bethnal Green and Bow. Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituency has the highest number of under-25s in Britain, and also one of the highest levels of youth unemployment, with more than one quarter of the unemployed being under 25? The situation is particularly bad for the ethnic minority community: 36 per cent. of Afro-Caribbeans and 48 per cent. of the Bangladeshi community are suffering from unemployment. Does my hon. Friend agree, therefore, that Bethnal Green and Bow in particular, and east London in general should receive immediate assistance from the scheme?

Mr. Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her question and the passion with which she rightly speaks about the needs of the young unemployed in her constituency. We shall carry forward the programme with jobs with private sector employers, work with the voluntary sector, places on the environmental task force and the option of full-time education and training to address basic skill needs. We shall carry the programme forward as quickly as possible to ensure that my hon. Friend's


constituents and others who are unemployed get the help that they need, which they have been denied for far too long, so that they can make the most of their potential.

Mr. Nicholls: No one would doubt the hon. Gentleman's commitment to helping the young unemployed—a commitment that is shared on both sides of the House. However, his problem is that, on the one hand, he has that aspiration and, on the other, his party is committed to a national minimum wage that will destroy low-paid jobs. All experience shows that the low-paid jobs often sought by the unemployed will disappear first. Does the hon. Gentleman feel comfortable with that?

Mr. Smith: Experience from elsewhere—including the United States, which has implemented the minimum wage—shows that it does no such thing: it is perfectly consistent with increasing the number of people in employment. If the hon. Gentleman genuinely shares our concern for the unemployed and our commitment to providing opportunities for them, he would listen to the electorate and what the people said in the recent general election campaign and get behind our drive to get people off welfare and into work.

Sixth Form Colleges

Mr. Viggers: Toector is ca ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement about the operation of the system of the sixth form colleges. [203]

Dr. Howells: The 109 sixth form colleges in England make a vital contribution to the education and training of our young people. The Government are determined that sixth form colleges shall continue to flourish.

Mr. Viggers: Does the Minister agree that the sixth form sector has been extremely successful in making efficiency gains? What extra efficiency gains does the Minispable of making? Can he assure the House that, whatever demands are made upon the sector, the Government will provide the funding?

Dr. Howells: We are aware of the efficiency gains that have been made in sixth form colleges, and of the increasing co-operation between those colleges and other further education institutions. We shall ensure that those efficiency gains continue, and that there is adequate provision for decent education through both sixth form colleges and colleges of further education.

Mr. Tipping: Can the Minister confirm that he has taken urgent steps to fill the funding gap left for sixth form colleges and for the further education sector generally as a result of the withdrawal of the demand-led element? Is it not right that colleges should meet the commitments that they entered into by September?

Dr. Howells: I confirm that the Government have no intention of reneging on the financial arrangements made by the previous Government amid the shambles of the demand-led funding element. We shall ensure that the contracts that have been entered into are maintained.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister anticipate any end to the efficiency gains that can be made by sixth form colleges and colleges of further education?

Dr. Howells: There are many opportunities for continuing efficiency gains, not least of which is the

proper application of information technology and other new technologies for education. I am looking forward to future gains and to better quality education all round.

Grant-maintained Schools

Sir Richard Body: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of the sums that will be taken from grant-maintained schools under his proposals will be delegated directly to schools. [204]

Mr. Byers: We are committed to establishing a funding system that does not discriminate unfairly between schools or pupils. We shall take work forward on that basis and will consult widely on specific proposals.

Sir Richard Body: Will the Minister give us some idea of what principles will guide the re-allocation of that money?

Mr. Byers: The principles will be fairness and justice —and we saw very little of that under the previous Administration. This Government are about valuing all our children, not just a few. All of our policies will be based on those clear, fundamental principles.

Mrs. Browning: On the subject of fairness and justice, I remind the hon. Gentleman of the letter that he sent me two days ago, outlining why the Secretary of State had refused GM status to a Roman Catholic senior school for girls in Exeter. In the final paragraph of that letter, he informed me:
At local level, a spirit of partnership will prevail to help those parents whose children will not be able to return to Mount St. Mary's in September.
Presumably, that partnership will come from the local education authority.
Is the Minister aware that I received information today that the LEA, the chief education officer and the council's officers have sent e-mails to people who opposed GM status for Mount St. Mary's, congratulating them and thanking them for their support? What fairness and justice is there in asking parents to send their children 60 miles away in order to access a Catholic education when the person that the Minister recommends as having a "spirit of partnership" has congratulated people for supporting his right hon. Friend's decision?

Mr. Byers: I am pleased to see the hon. Lady in her place. I thank her for the small part that she played in ensuring such a victory for the Labour party at the general election.

Mrs. Browning: Come on, let us have it. What about fairness and justice?

Mr. Byers: It is clear that the hon. Lady is not aware of the specific recommendations that were made by officials for grant-maintained status. Clear recommendations were made, and on balance my right hon. Friend decided to reject the application. The application was rejected, based on the principles of fairness and justice.

Unemployment (Seaside Towns)

Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will review Her Majesty's Government's plans for dealing with unemployment levels in seaside towns in the south-east. [206]

Mr. Alan Howarth: We will indeed. We cannot accept unemployment at its present level, whether in seaside towns in the south-east or anywhere else. That is why we are already engaged in detailed and urgent work to introduce our new programmes to help the long-term unemployed and get 250,000 young people into jobs. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that his constituents are benefiting from the European programme KONVER II and that they are eligible to benefit from European social funding objective 3. Possibly the hon. Gentleman would regard those as tainted sources.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister prepared to be serious and to tell me how much cash has come to Southend, East, as set against the monstrous amount of grants, loans and subsidies going to other parts of the country? Perhaps he should take the issue more seriously. Does he accept that the seaside towns have a real problem of high unemployment? My constituency has unemployment of more than 10 per cent. That creates a great deal of misery and lack of opportunity. Will the Minister be prepared to consider establishing a special study to examine whether there is an equal sphere of public investment? Secondly, should there not be a study of the utter distortion that is created by grants, loans and subsidies that are given to other areas with much lower rates of unemployment?

Mr. Howarth: The funding from the KONVER II programme to the hon. Gentleman's constituency is £105,000. Much more substantially, the hon. Gentleman's constituents are benefiting from single regeneration budget funding of £2.2 million to regenerate the area of Shoeburyness. The hon. Gentleman is right in contending that these programmes must be kept under review, and that is what we shall do. Apart from anything else, we need the most accurate and up-to-date map of unemployment. Much unemployment is concentrated in compact, tightly drawn geographical areas. In those areas, we need to understand as much as we can about the nature of the local unemployment problem.
I shall value the hon. Gentleman's advice, as will Ministers and officials at the Department of Trade and Industry. We shall have much in mind the real and distinctive problems that are suffered by the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

Information Technology

Ms Moran: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps the Government are taking to agree and publish national targets for training in appropriate IT skills. [207]

Dr. Howells: The development of appropriate IT skills is a clear priority both for young people and adults. We are currently considering whether setting a national target is the most effective way to proceed.

Ms Moran: I wish warmly to respond to my hon. Friend's positive note. I know that national standards will help young people in Luton to obtain access to jobs in future. I commend to my hon. Friend particularly a project involving Luton council and the Luton-Dunstable partnership, which involves IT skills and standards, and which is of particular benefit in helping women in my constituency to gain access to employment.

Dr. Howells: I thank my hon. Friend. I shall examine closely the Luton scheme if she will furnish me with details of it. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the value of information technology skills. It is no exaggeration to say that if children do not have IT skills it is a loss as great as not being able to write or to be numerate when it comes to finding employment in what is becoming increasingly an electronically based economy.

Nursery Vouchers

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many nursery vouchers had been issued to parents in England at the latest date for which information is available. [208]

Ms Estelle Morris: At the beginning of this week, some 618,000 vouchers for the summer term had been sent to parents of eligible four-year-olds in England.

Mr. Lidington: Can the hon. Lady say how great an increase she expects to see in the provision of nursery places for four-year-olds in the first year of the new scheme that the Government now plan to introduce?

Ms Morris: Yes. We do expect to see an increase in the number of places available for four-year-olds and we have a target to achieve that by September of next year. The hon. Gentleman must remember that what we now have available is all the money that his Government wasted in expensive advertising and bureaucracy. We intend to put that towards providing good-quality education for four-year-olds.

Mr. Pike: I welcome all that the Minister and my colleagues on the Government Front Bench have said this afternoon about nursery education and the ending of nursery vouchers, but will she say that the Government now recognise the importance of nursery education to our children and that, in due course, nursery education will be included in the standard spending assessment for education?

Ms Morris: We have always recognised the importance of early years education. In fact, many Labour local authorities throughout the country have excellent records in ensuring that the children in their areas receive it. We will, of course, develop plans so that not only will all four-year-olds receive good quality nursery education, but that that opportunity will also be available to three-year-olds.

Business of the House

Mr. Alastair Goodlad: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for after the Whitsun recess?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): The business for the first week back after the recess will be as follows:

MONDAY 2 JUNE—Until 10 pm, Second Reading of the Education (Schools) Bill.
Motion on the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act 1996 (Revival of Section 3) Order.
TUESDAY 3 JuNE—Consideration in Committee of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 4 JUNE—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Starting at 3.30 pm, conclusion of consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill.
Motion on the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons.
THURSDAY 5 JuNE—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Education (Schools) Bill.
FRIDAY 6 JUNE—Debate on the governance of London on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 9 JUNE—Debate on the European Union on a Government motion.
Motion on the Draft Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 compensation scheme.

Mr. Goodlad: I thank the right hon. Lady. May I remind her that she said that she would give us two weeks' business, where possible? Can she give any indication of the likely business for the rest of the week beginning Monday 9 June?
We are grateful that the Committee stage of the referendums Bill is to be taken on the Floor of the House. Can the Leader of the House give us a commitment, which she could not last week, that all constitutional Bills will similarly be taken on the Floor?
Can she say—rather more precisely than her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland did yesterday—when the White Papers on the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly will be published? Does she believe that Parliament's right to amend the legislation following the referendums will be constrained by the results of those referendums or not? Does she agree that the Government's plans to introduce a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly diminish the authority of the House? Will she undertake to provide more time, if necessary, for the House to reflect on the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill?
Will the Leader of the House provide more than one day for consideration in Committee and for the Third Reading of the Education (Schools) Bill, not least as it is the Governments's intention not to publish that important Bill until tomorrow, when the House will have risen for the Whitsun recess?
Will the Leader of the House confirm that the debate on Monday 9 June will be the pre-Amsterdam intergovernmental conference debate, and that that will

be the first day only of a two-day debate to allow for contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House who will wish to participate in large numbers?
Will a White Paper or other document be published before the debate on the governance of London on Friday 6 June?
Does the Leader of the House agree that the debate on the modernisation of House of Commons procedures will be a serious one, in which many hon. Members will wish to participate, and that it is most inconvenient that it should be taken at the end of what may turn out to be a late night on the Committee stage of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill? Would it not be more appropriate to take it at the beginning rather than at the end of a day?
Will the right hon. Lady give time for a debate on the massive increase in political appointments in Whitehall, which is giving rise to increasing concern about the potential politicisation of the civil service by the Government? [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady will wish to compare the number of political appointments made by this Government in Whitehall with those made by the previous Government. It will be a salutary figure, particularly for Labour Members who have come here as Lobby fodder.
We welcome the Government's expression of their determination to set up the Select Committees as soon as possible—an intention which we support. When will the motions to set up the House of Commons Commission and the Select Committees be tabled? In particular, when will the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges be set up? It is clear that there will be a strong desire on both sides of the House to proceed as a matter of urgency, not least in the light of the allegations about the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar).
Will the Leader of the House please tell us the proposed date for the Budget, and whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a further statement on the Bank of England in the light of the Governor's reported proposal to resign over the proposed changes to the regulation of financial services?
May I remind the Leader of the House that on Tuesday, the advance copy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement, which should have been in the hands of my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer by 3 o'clock at the latest, was in fact not delivered until after 3.15? Can the right hon. Lady confirm that she will make representations to her Cabinet colleagues to ensure that such a practice will not recur?
Does the right hon. Lady accept that, following the Prime Minister's remarks at Question Time yesterday, there is now great uncertainty about the Government's proposed windfall tax, and will she confirm that it is the Government's intention to allow time for a proper debate in the House on that matter in advance of the Budget, so that some of those uncertainties can be resolved? [Interruption.] Watch this space.
Finally, will the right hon. Lady ensure that her ministerial colleagues do not follow the Deputy Prime Minister's example in seeking to talk out the debate on the Queen's Speech—an humiliation from which he was


rescued only by your intervention, Madam Speaker—and that Ministers make some small effort to abide by our rules of procedure?

Mrs. Taylor: I shall endeavour to answer all the questions that have been put to me, which I hope will reduce the number of questions that others might put later, particularly in view of the time.
I hope that we can move towards achieving our ambition to produce two weeks' business, but I think that the shadow Leader of the House forgot that next week is a recess, so he does have the second week's business, and some indication of what is happening.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that we were taking the referendums Bill on the Floor of the House, and he asked whether all constitutional Bills could be dealt with in that way. I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said to him last week about that. The Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland have made it clear that the White Papers will be produced in good time for proper consideration by those who will vote in the referendums.
The right hon. Gentleman invited me to anticipate what will happen after the referendums. That is somewhat strange, as it would be unreasonable to second-guess the outcome. We are clear that, if the referendums result in a mandate for the devolution proposals, we will press ahead with legislation. We believe that a mandate was given in the general election, and the referendums invite people to confirm that opinion.
I regret that the Education (Schools) Bill, which will be considered next week, is not published today, although the long title is available. From education questions, it is clear that Conservative Members are aware of the content of that Bill. We have increased the time for Second Reading at the specific request of the Opposition. Therefore, hon. Members will have a considerable time in which to make their views known.
I confirm that the debate on the European Union will be the pre-Amsterdam debate. It will be a one-day debate, which is in line with the previous Government's practice of holding a one-day debate in such circumstances.
I do not think that there will be a White Paper in advance of the debate on London, which will be an opportunity for hon. Members to raise issues with the Ministers with direct responsibility. There should be a fair amount of interest in that debate.
Modernisation of procedures is a serious issue, and I hope that much interest will be shown from both sides of the House. The right hon. Gentleman should remember that the motion to establish the Select Committee on modernisation will be the second stage. We shall debate modernisation tonight, and I hope that we shall have the attendance in the Chamber that the right hon. Gentleman anticipates.
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on making his complaint about the increase in political appointments and the politicisation of the civil service with a straight face, although his face was about to crack towards the end of his remarks.
We need no lectures from Conservatives Members on that issue. The right hon. Gentleman referred to my hon. Friends as Lobby fodder. He has not got it quite right: my hon. Friends are here to make their voices heard. In the

three-hour Adjournment debate yesterday, it was evident that Labour Members want to make their voices heard. During the whole three hours, there was only one Conservative contribution, there was not even a winding-up speech by an Opposition Front-Bench Member, and at times the Front Bench was empty. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is complaining with his Chief Whip's hat on because he has no Lobby fodder.
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's comments about Select Committees. I am grateful for what he said through the usual channels about hoping to establish Select Committees as soon as possible. We share that feeling, and I hope that we can make early progress after the Whitsun recess.
I cannot give the House today a date for the Budget, but we shall make an announcement as soon as possible. If the shadow Chancellor did not receive yesterday's statement by 3 pm, that was wrong, and we should apologise for it. I have mentioned the matter to colleagues, and we shall take steps to ensure that statements that should be available to the official Opposition and anyone else, including you, Madam Speaker, will be delivered at the appropriate time. We complained about such slippage when we were in opposition, so we have no reason to repeat it.
As for the windfall tax, I think that our policy purpose is clear, and I see no point in debating the matter before the Budget. With respect to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, I thought that the situation at the end of the debate was handled admirably.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Of necessity, that was a long exchange. I do not intend to take long statements from Back Benchers; they should be brisk, limited to one question and directly to the point.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 38?
[That this House welcomes the commitment of over 70 heads of government, including the British Prime Minister to attend Earth Summit II in New York from 23rd to 27th June; calls for an early parliamentary debate to ensure that the British delegation is fully briefed on this House's concerns, concerning climate, finance, forests and fresh water to ensure a sustainable future for the planet.]
The motion concerns the summit that is to take place in New York at the end of the month. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that it is extremely important. Will she arrange for the House to be able to discuss global warming and environmental sustainability before the large and important British delegation goes to the conference?

Mrs. Taylor: I am not sure that it will be possible to arrange the kind of debate that my hon. Friend envisages. He may know, however, that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced his intention to attend the summit, and he will be addressing the United Nations General Assembly in New York towards the end of June. The Government have made it clear that the goal of sustainable development is one of the major challenges we face, is important to Government policy, and will be


taken on board by all Ministers. Although I cannot promise the debate that my hon. Friend wants, I hope that he will think that that is a step in the right direction.

Mr. Paul Tyler: In view of the leadership bid that we heard just now from the acting shadow Leader of the House, may I reassure the House that I am making no such bid in relation to my party?

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Not until the second round.

Mr. Tyler: We might make a bid for the leadership of the hon. Gentleman's party in the second round.
May I ask the Leader of the House to give us a specific assurance about important announcements relating to local government, particularly in respect of the capping of local authority expenditure limits, and both the release and the distribution of capital receipts from the right-to-buy programme? Those matters are extremely important to local authorities, as I am sure the Leader of the House understands, and it would be intolerable if such statements were made outside the House rather than in the House, so that hon. Members can hear them and explore their implications.

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman will know that the issue of capping was raised by one of his hon. Friends during yesterday's Adjournment debate. We believe that caps are necessary in certain circumstances, and, when an authority is capped, it has 28 days in which to challenge the decision. The hon. Gentleman may also have noticed that his hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) has secured a debate on Wednesday week about one of the authorities concerned.

Mr. David Winnick: May I ask my right hon. Friend—in a constructive way—whether it would be possible, during the week when we return, to hear a statement outlining what the Government intend to do to ensure that all parties represented in the House of Commons must themselves ensure that hon. Members have a vote in the leadership ballot? Would that not prevent a situation in which 164 Tory Members of Parliament can decide who should be the Leader of the Opposition?

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend will, I think, acknowledge that I have no responsibility for elections in other parties. [Interruption.] The hon. Member says, "Quite right." I must admit that I am very glad that I do not have any such responsibility, and I think that many Opposition Members wish that they did not, either.
I am, however, concerned about the fact that there are occasions on which the leadership ballot dominates the official Opposition to such an extent that they spend all their time on that, and very little time considering the business of the House.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Can the Leader of the House clarify the position relating to the referendums Bill? Will there be a timetable motion before we debate it on the Floor of the House? If so, how much

time does the right hon. Lady expect that the House will be given to discuss that extremely important Bill? Is she prepared to extend the time when she sees how many amendments have been tabled, if there are a great many?

Mrs. Taylor: We have provided a day and a half for Second Reading. The Bill is simple and straightforward; there has already been considerable debate on it, and more will follow today. We are providing two full days, and I hope that that will be adequate. Given the nature of the Bill, I think that it will be.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the last Government left a number of nasty little time bombs ticking away in the transport world, including the franchises that have been granted to privatised railways. Will she assure us that, when the Select Committees are set up, there will be a separate Select Committee on Transport to consider many of the problems that we face?

Mrs. Taylor: I am sympathetic to the need for a separate Select Committee, which will form part of the discussions through the usual channels.

Mr. Michael Colvin: The Leader of the House will be aware that the NATO summit takes place in July in Madrid. One of the most important items on the agenda will be the enlargement of NATO, which will have profound effects not only on the defence of our realm but on the cost of NATO membership. As no specific day was set aside for a debate on defence during the debates on the Loyal Address, could the right hon. Lady give an undertaking that the House will have an opportunity to debate defence matters between now and the end of June? In particular, some reports from the Select Committee on Defence in the last Parliament are still on the Table awaiting a Government reply.

Mrs. Taylor: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. The parliamentary timetable is extremely crowded, but I will look at the matter that he raises. I remind him that there will be Defence questions on 16 June, during which he could raise some of the issues that he mentions.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a bit rich for Tory Members who have already taken part in these exchanges to ask for extra time for common market debates, when, not so long ago, in the memory of almost everybody here, we had to drag a Tory Minister kicking and screaming from a Committee Room upstairs to have even a one-day debate on the common market?
Will she ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to look not only into the backlog in Child Support Agency applications but into the growing backlog of appeals on disability living allowance? We shall have to clean up the two Tory Acts relating to those matters. That will take a bit of time, but we must have some assurances that those backlogs will be removed.

Mrs. Taylor: I appreciate my hon. Friend's comments about EU debates in the past. I hope that we will not see such spectacles in future. He asked about social security issues and outstanding work. We all know from our casework the problems that the CSA and other agencies


have created. I know that my hon. Friends in the appropriate Department are anxious to streamline procedures and to move quickly, because, as my hon. Friend says, there is a significant backlog of work, which requires a great deal of attention.

Mr. William Cash: The right hon. Lady referred to the spectacle, as she put it, of a past debate. Of course, the need to hold that debate on the Floor of the House had to do with the stability pact. Does the right hon. Lady acknowledge that the forthwith motion that was tabled in consequence of the recommendations of the Select Committee on European Legislation has not yet been taken? Can she assure us that it will be dealt with soon? The Prime Minister is going to Noorddjik tomorrow, and that means that there will be a European Council meeting without a subsequent statement. Does she not agree that that is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs?

Mrs. Taylor: There will be a chance to raise all those issues in the debate that I have announced. The debate on 9 June will be to discuss all the issues raised at Amsterdam. I am sure that, given his usual interest in these matters, the hon. Gentleman will try to catch your eye, Madam Speaker, during that debate.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Thanks to the initiative of hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey), we have had an Adjournment debate on opencast mining. May we have a fully fledged debate on this matter? Labour published a 10-point programme on opencast mining which I used widely in my constituency, and we are keen to raise some matters from that. For instance, I should like to raise the question of the Avenue Court works, because I twice asked the previous Government to call in the planning agreements to operate in that area, and I ask for that to be done by this Government.

Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that subject, because, like him, I have a constituency interest, and, also like him, I campaigned on the issue during the general election. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth was fortunate to have an early debate on this, and I know that opencast mining concerns many people. I will bring my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my ministerial colleagues.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Could the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement about the problems that are being experienced by Dayavanti Pictures, a film company that is trying to make a major feature film in the Scottish highlands? It has found that 16 of its cast and crew of 80 have suggested that they might be denied entry visas. A message has been passed to me in the past few seconds to the effect that circumstances might be improving.
Does the right hon. Lady understand that many of us had hoped that the behaviour of entry clearance officers would change with the change of Government, but that that does not seem to have happened? Does she appreciate that such matters are vital to Scotland's economy at a time when we are trying to market the country as a major film location? The behaviour of entry clearance officers is deeply insulting and embarrassing to the Asian

community in Scotland, who have done so much work in trying to persuade this major film company to choose Scotland as a film location in Europe.

Mrs. Taylor: I will look into the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I presume that it is a matter of entry visas and work permits. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is here on the Bench, and has also noted the hon. Gentleman's comments. We have not had any messages in the last few seconds such as the hon. Gentleman has had, so perhaps we are not so up to date as him, but we will look into the issue.

Ms Joan Walley: May I add my concern to that which has already been expressed that there should be an early opportunity to discuss early-day motion 38? The earth summit in New York is approaching. It will be attended by Heads of Government. We have a wonderful opportunity to put the environment at the heart of our new Government, after it was abandoned by the previous Government. I urge my right hon. Friend to consider the matter closely.

Mrs. Taylor: I note the comments of my hon. Friend. Perhaps this is a matter on which she and her colleagues could consider making an application for a Wednesday morning debate.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the right hon. Lady consider a short debate on standards in public life? Would it not give the House an opportunity to explore the paradox that, when the former Member of Parliament for Tatton was accused of impropriety, the Labour party said that he should be rejected from the House right away? As the Labour party has taken an entirely different attitude to the allegations in respect of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar), such a debate would provide an opportunity at this early stage in the Parliament to reject the charge of double standards, or perhaps no standards whatever.

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman should welcome what the Labour party has done in Scotland in calling in the police. If there are any double standards, they have just been demonstrated by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: Does my hon. Friend agree that any great reforming Labour Government would give priority first and foremost to its pensioners? When does she expect that the pensions review will take place? Has she seen and noted early-day motion 1, the first of this new Parliament?
[That this House celebrates with joy and hope the election of what will be a great reforming Labour Government; applauds its manifesto declaration that `all pensioners should share fairly in the increasing prosperity of the nation'; asserts that this can be achieved for the present generation of pensioners only by restoring the link between basic pensions and average earning; urges an immediate start to the promised manifesto review of 'all aspects of the basic pension and its value, second pensions including SERPS and community care' and a renewal of the commitment to retain SERPS.]
It expresses concern that, according to our manifesto declarations, pensioners should be able to share in the economic prosperity of the country as soon as possible. When does she expect the review and a debate in the House?

Mrs. Taylor: A review cannot take place overnight, but my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Social Security are considering the matter with a view to making progress as quickly as possible. I think that all hon. Members will acknowledge that it is a complex matter. We have made some clear commitments in the manifesto about the basic state pension as the foundation of pension provision, but an overall review will inevitably take some time.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I refer back to the question asked by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), about local authority capital receipts? The right hon. Lady failed to respond to that part of his question. When do the Government intend to make some statement on the matter? Is it their intention to allow the authority in question to retain its own capital receipts and spend them, or to take that money away from some authorities and distribute it elsewhere?

Mrs. Taylor: I have to remind the hon. Gentleman that it was his Government who froze capital receipts. We have made it clear that there will be action to release capital receipts on a phased basis as soon as possible. It was mentioned during the debate on the Queen's Speech. When we come to the next stage, the appropriate statements will be made.

Mr. Barry Jones: What is the prospect of a debate on Britain's aerospace industry? British Aerospace workers in my constituency are asking questions about grant aid for the CXX project—the future large aircraft project—and Raytheon workers are asking for a share of the Government's Astra project. Can my right hon. Friend help by providing a debate?

Mrs. Taylor: I am not sure whether we can have such a debate in the near future, but I will pass on my hon. Friend's concerns to right hon. Friends at the Department. My hon. Friend may want to consider that particular constituency interest as a matter on which to apply for an Adjournment Debate.

Mr. David Lidington: Will the right hon. Lady give priority to re-establishing the Select Committee on European Legislation and the associated Standing Committees? Will she assure the House that the Government will not agree to any European directive or other legislation that might now be pending until the proper process of parliamentary scrutiny has been followed through?

Mrs. Taylor: I have made it clear that I am extremely anxious to move quickly on the re-establishment of all

Select Committees, and that would include all the Committees which also consider delegated or secondary legislation and European legislation.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether it might be possible to find some time in the near future for a major debate on foreign affairs? I understand that it was not possible to hold such debate on the Queen's Speech. I am sure that she will appreciate, however, that current conditions in Kashmir, in Sri Lanka and particularly in the middle east are of great concern to a number of hon. Members who would welcome the opportunity for such a major debate, when we could raise our concerns with Foreign Office Ministers.

Mrs. Taylor: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, because he has always taken an interest in foreign affairs. As I said earlier, the parliamentary timetable is somewhat crowded at the moment. It was decided through the usual channels that there would not be a foreign affairs debate during the Queen's Speech, which would have normally provided an opportunity for hon. Members to express their concerns. We are therefore aware that there is a potential gap for such a debate, but I can only repeat that the parliamentary timetable is somewhat crowded. It might be difficult to find a suitable space, but I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's representations.

Mr. Peter Luff: Notwithstanding the right hon. Lady's earlier reply, may I urge her to give absolute priority to the establishment of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, since those of us on the Conservative Benches at least believe that that is the right place for this House to reassert its belief that an individual is innocent until proven guilty, whether in Glasgow, Govan or in Tatton?

Mrs. Taylor: I have made it clear that I am very much in favour of the Standards and Privileges Committee continuing its work as quickly as possible.

Mr. Dafis: May I add my voice to those of the two Labour Members who have stressed the importance of a debate on the Earth summit II? There are various ways in which that could be managed. It is terribly important that hon. Members who are interested should be able to convey to the Government the great importance that they attach to that major international event, probably the most important such event in which the Government will be involved this year. May I also suggest that there should be a statement following that summit?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman, who tabled the relevant early-day motion, is well known for his interest in such matters over many years, and I congratulate him on his persistence. He has said that the summit is an important event, and I hope that he will acknowledge that the Government have recognised it as such, because the Prime Minister himself has decided to attend. I will consider the hon. Gentleman's request about any possible need for a statement following the Earth Summit.

Orders of the Day — Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment to the Question [21 May], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Which amendment was: To leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof—

this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill because it would ask voters to give blanket approval to proposals in advance of legislation being published, debated, amended or agreed; and believes that such referendums should only be held after full and detailed scrutiny of the legislation in question on the floor of the House of Commons'-[Mr. Howard.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order as I think I have the answer that he wants.

Mr. Cash: In my exchanges with the Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday, I raised what I termed the United Kingdom question. I then found it necessary to table an instruction last night, the effect of which would be to ensure that, if the House deemed it necessary, amendments would be tabled to the Bill to extend the franchise to the electorate of the United Kingdom as a whole. Following discussions this morning, I have been given to understand that you, Madam Speaker, may be prepared to give a ruling on the matter so that we can be sure that we shall be able to table amendments to extend the franchise to the electorate of the United Kingdom as a whole. May I ask for your ruling on the matter?

Madam Speaker: I have carefully considered the instruction tabled by the hon. Gentleman and decided not to select it for the simple reason that, in this case, it is unnecessary. The hon. Gentleman and any other hon. Members may table such amendments as he has in mind.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): My contribution to the Welsh part of the Bill will be brief and will serve as an hors d'oeuvre to the main course provided by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is a privilege and an honour to be a Minister in the Welsh Office during one of the most exciting and reforming periods in the history of Welsh politics. For the first time in 18 long and miserable years, is it not wonderful to have a Secretary of State who can speak with authority for Wales because he represents a constituency in Wales? He is not a Welsh leader who treats his important office as a platform for his crackpot ideology or one for whom the office is a youth training scheme. The Secretary of State is a man of the people and will govern for the people of Wales.
The referendum is an important step towards creating a new democratic settlement that will take Wales into the next century with confidence and dynamism. The referendum is a passport to a new participatory Welsh


democracy in which decisions will be brought closer to the people. Under our new Welsh Assembly, power will shift down from Westminster to Wales. There will be a new partnership with local government, which will be liberated from the suffocating centralised control of the Tory years. It will unite all parts of Wales—north and south, east and west, valleys and towns, rural and urban areas.
Details of the referendum will be in the White Paper; every voter will be well aware of the Government's plans. The referendum will be held on the principle of an Assembly, and that has been well publicised and well argued. It was set out clearly in our election manifesto and in documents issued by the Welsh Labour party over the past two years, so it has been widely debated in Wales.
We have one of the biggest mandates for this policy ever enjoyed by an incoming Government. May I remind Conservative Members that the people of England also gave an overwhelming mandate for this policy? The Tories polled just 34 per cent. of the vote in England, compared with a combined pro-devolution Labour and Liberal vote of 62 per cent., despite the Tories trying to frighten the pants off everyone during the election campaign by having as one of their main planks spurious claims that devolution would lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. Our mandate included an absolute promise to consult the people before proceeding with legislation to introduce an Assembly. We are now keeping our promise with this Bill.
A new assembly will mean employment policies tailored to the needs of Wales; health programmes geared to the needs of Wales; housing policies that reflect Welsh wishes; and education policies determined by Welsh priorities and not by those of an alien dogma, which turned our classrooms into laboratories for right-wing extremists. In the referendum vote in September, we shall invite the people to say yes to Wales—yes to an Assembly, yes to having a bigger say in decisions affecting their own lives. It will be an historic test of whether Wales is ready for the new millennium. Those who vote no will be locked in the past, saying that they have no confidence in our capacity as a nation to make decisions about our own future. Those who vote yes will be saying that we can build a better Wales —we can utilise our talent to forge a new future. As a Government, we shall work hard to persuade the people to vote yes and the Labour party will mount a vigorous campaign, led by the Prime Minister, to persuade the people to vote yes.
We say to each and every Labour supporter, this is a loyalty vote in your new Labour Government. Do not side with the Tories in undermining such a crucial part of our programme by voting no or by not bothering to vote at all. The new Assembly will include the views of supporters of other parties. We have had enough of government by one-party diktat—we want a Government for all the people. We say that the views of Liberals, nationalists and even Conservatives—if any are ever again elected in Wales—views will be respected in the new democratic era.
I say bluntly to those Conservatives who appear not to have noticed that they were wiped out in Wales: "You lost—in fact, you got hammered." The victory on 1 May of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) did a great favour, not only for the Labour party, but for humanity. Rod Richards was the only Conservative who could make even the right hon.
Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) seem popular in Wales. It is important to ask why the Conservatives are so frightened of giving the people a say. Is it because many Tories will also vote yes? I remind the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) that only one Welsh Conservative—Viscount St. Davids—has so far spoken on devolution in this Parliament, and he supported a Welsh Assembly. Is that to be a pattern for the Conservative party in Wales, or part of the constantly shifting fudge of Welsh Tory politics in the new era?
There is now a great tide flowing through Wales in favour of grasping this opportunity for devolution. We shall not be left behind when the Scots get devolution or when even Londoners get an elected authority. We shall not throw away this opportunity to replace the Tory quango state with democratic government. Nearly 700,000 people who were not old enough to be on the electoral register in 1979 will have the chance to vote for the first time for a Welsh Assembly. Through bands such as Catatonia and the Manic Street Preachers, Welsh youth is leading the way, not only in the pop world, but for a yes vote as well. Leading Welsh business men and women are uniting with trade unionists, with the churches and with prominent figures from sport and the arts to say yes for Wales. Even those who do not support every detail of Labour's proposed Welsh Assembly have said that they will vote yes for Wales.
People who want a stronger assembly, or a different one, or a different voting system, can still vote yes with integrity—indeed they must, because otherwise there will be no Bill in the House to try to amend. Only if we get a yes vote on the principle will there be an opportunity to test the different arguments on the detail. Only if there is a yes vote will there be the opportunity to review the assembly's operation in future years and to consider whether changes would be desirable in the light of such a review.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I welcome the Minister to his post. The hon. Gentleman is aware that there is considerable support among those who want an elected tier of Welsh democracy for that assembly or Parliament to have primary law-making powers for at least some functions. He has now said that there may be opportunities to amend the Bill if there is a yes vote. Will he undertake to ensure that the Bill will have a long title broad enough to include provisions for primary law-making powers?

Mr. Hain: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about my appointment. I am not inviting amendments to the Bill and I shall not necessarily greet them with enthusiasm, but he, Plaid Cymru, the Conservatives and the Liberals have the right to press their arguments, which we shall listen to although we shall also be bound by our overall policy. My argument is that unless the Bill gets into Parliament as a result of a yes vote in the referendum, that opportunity will not arise.
Unless the Government win the referendum, devolution in Wales will be dead in the water. There will not be another chance to create a Welsh Assembly or a Welsh Parliament. If Wales votes no to devolution for the second time in a generation, Wales can kiss goodbye to devolution. That is the blunt truth. No Government will bother with it again. This is our one and only chance. It is a once-in-a-lifetime vote. Let us go for it.

Sir Teddy Taylor: It is a privilege to be called so early in the debate. Newer Members will be aware of the nightmare of Back Benchers—that of waiting for hours, sometimes without being called in a debate. It is a privilege, for the first time for many years, to speak quite so early. I shall be brief.
The hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), the spokesman for the Opposition, has just given us a sincere speech.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The Government, not the Opposition.

Sir Teddy Taylor: For the Government; my apologies. The Minister must be aware that a fundamental constitutional change is taking place, which will cost a great deal of money and involve a great deal of change. How would he feel if such a proposal were put into practice on the strength of 21 per cent. voting yes, 19 per cent. voting no and the rest of the community in Wales saying that they could not care less?
The Government should be aware of another point. Older people such as myself were told passionately by the media that everyone was excited about and very much taken with the idea of devolution, and then, when the referendum was held in Scotland, we found out that a large proportion of the population were not remotely interested in the issue.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the Government because they are going through exactly what Sir Edward Heath's Government went through. They have adopted the principle of devolution. I am ashamed to say that, in our case, I gained the impression that we adopted that principle not because we believed in it but because we thought that it would help us as a defence against the Scottish nationalists.
I have a horrible feeling about the attitude of Labour Members to devolution. I mean this in all sincerity: I am not trying to attack politicians. The impression that I have gained from speaking to the majority of Labour Members, with a few exceptions, is that they are not at all keen on this business. They envisage huge problems, and they say that they adopted the proposal for the same bad reason that we did—because they believed that it would help to cope with Scottish nationalism. The House of Commons must appreciate that although there is a good and strong case for independence for Scotland and for Wales—although it is one with which I personally disagree—there is no argument whatever for devolution, which will lead to horrendous mistakes and will increase confusion and the pressure for separation.
I believe that the great majority of Members of Parliament do not believe in devolution. If a Scottish Parliament has no tax-raising powers, people in Scotland will blame London or the English for everything that goes wrong. Hon. Members will be well aware that the same occurs in relation to county councils—when things do not get done, people blame the Government. If anything goes wrong, those involved in a Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly will say that it is because they are not getting their share of the cash.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: People do that now.

Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right, and that is the basis on which nationalism has received more

support than it otherwise merits. On the other hand, if a Scottish Parliament has tax-raising powers, it will lead inevitably to higher taxes in Scotland. As someone who has spent most of my life in Scotland, I am well aware that—for perfectly good and logical reasons—Scotland is subsidised by the rest of the UK. I am sure that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has figures to say that that is not so, but the plain fact is that Scotland does get subsidised. If a Scottish Parliament has separate tax-raising powers, it will mean higher taxation in Scotland and that will do no good.
Members of Parliament must think also about the democratic implications. For example, if I were a citizen of Wales or Scotland and I wished to complain about cuts in the schools programme, who would I contact? Who would I blame? Would I contact my county council? The council would say, "Not at all. The Assembly is to blame for not providing enough money." Would I contact my assemblyman in Wales or my Scottish parliamentarian? They would say, "It is not us—it is those London boys." A lot of people will be blaming each other, and it could be infinitely worse. There will be Members of this Parliament and members of the Scottish Parliament representing similar areas.

Mr. Denis MacShane: That happens in Europe.

Sir Teddy Taylor: How right the hon. Gentleman is to mention Europe. I am not blaming Europe, but I shall refer to my recent surgeries in Southend. I am sorry to have been distracted, because I promised to make a short speech. At my surgeries, people have asked me to campaign and vote against the export of live animals. I have had to say, "I am terribly sorry, but even if every Member of Parliament voted to ban such exports, nothing could be done. The power is gone."
In a neighbouring constituency, a pile of candidates representing all parties went to see fishermen at Leigh and all gave them great assurances. The fishermen then came to me and said, "Will you stop these nasty Spaniards coming here?" I had to say, "I am terribly sorry, but there is nothing that we can do. Even if every Member of Parliament wanted to do something, the power has gone."
I was visited by ladies from an Asda superstore, who complained about something that I did not understand—VAT on items of feminine hygiene. I do not know what they are, but I was asked if we could take VAT off them. I had to explain that Parliament does not have that power. So much power has been taken away from our democracy already, and we are now proposing to share it out among even more Parliaments. It will make a terrible mess.
If I am right—and I think I am—the Government now regret proposing devolution, but what can we do to help them and the United Kingdom? Of course, I may be wrong and the Government may be wildly enthusiastic about devolution. Frankly, on the basis of private discussions—which I will not repeat—I think that the great majority of hon. Members are now sorry they ever thought about devolution.

Mr. MacShane: indicated dissent

Sir Teddy Taylor: The first thing we can do is simple—so simple that even the hon. Member for


Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who claims to be a democrat but supports the European Union, will understand it. Will he accept a simple proposition, which I hope the Government will accept? If people are dead keen on this business, what could be lost by having a 40 per cent. rule? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] What is wrong with that? Unless 40 per cent. of the people of Wales or Scotland—50 per cent. would be even better—want devolution, we should not proceed with it.
Devolution will create terrible problems, lots of extra expense and a great deal of administration. Why not say to the people of Scotland, "If you are as keen on it as the minority in the Labour party argues, why not have a rule whereby, if 40 per cent. of you vote for it, it can go ahead, but not otherwise"?
I hope that hon. Members—particularly our delightful new Secretary of State for Scotland, who used to discuss the matter with me many years ago on Scottish television—will think about the real problems that the United Kingdom will have if we create a monstrosity whereby Members of Parliament such as the Secretary of State can vote on education or health Bills in England when English Members of Parliament will not have the equivalent power in Scotland. The issue has been raised time and again by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who takes his job in the House of Commons more seriously than many. Is not there something democratically dangerous about it? Why should Scottish Members have that entitlement when Scotland will have more representation than the rest of the United Kingdom? Unless we face up to that question we shall create a democratic nightmare.
We shall not always have a party with a huge majority on one side of the House and a party with a small number on the other. I do not know which parties will survive in future, but the numbers will be closer. Other parties may take over. Indeed, we may even find that the Referendum party will suddenly lift off—anything could happen. If, in future, the position in the House of Commons were tight, Labour Members would not be happy to be outvoted by colleagues from other countries, when they will have no power over legislation in those countries.

Ms Rachel Squire: What are the hon. Gentleman's views on what happened in the House over the past 18 years? The previous Government could ensure that hon. Members who represented neither Scottish nor Welsh constituencies forced through legislation, particularly Scottish legislation, which the majority of the people of Scotland neither wanted nor voted for.

Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Lady's point would be valid if she were a nationalist. I would agree absolutely with what she said if I believed that Scotland should be an independent sovereign state. I would then say, "What the blazes are these guys in London doing deciding for us?" However, we are part of the United Kingdom, so all United Kingdom Members of Parliament should determine those issues. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire)—she must be one of the new arrivals—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, she is not."] I apologise, I am half-blind. The hon. Lady should ask herself the simple question: what is the logic of legislation applying to England being voted on by people in other countries? It is wholly wrong and undemocratic. If there

were a political divide in this country whereby English Members could not control their administration whereas a separate Scottish Parliament could, it would be an appalling democratic outrage. Something must be done about that.
Some hon. Members, particularly those who favour more subsidies for everything, will say, "What does this matter? Isn't this silly? Why should we bother about it?" We must bother about it if we believe in democracy. Some of my hon. Friends and I have therefore tabled an amendment, which I hope the Government will accept. It simply says that we should face up to what we now call the West Lothian question and have a minimum percentage voting for the scheme.
I was a Scottish Member of Parliament for several years, then I ceased to be one, as have many other Conservatives in Scotland. I gained the impression that if an opinion poll was conducted and the average Scot was asked, "Do you want a Scottish Parliament?", most of them would say yes. There is no doubt about that. If, however, Scots were asked, "Would you like a Scottish Assembly that would have partial control of part of Scotland's affairs, that would add to public expenditure," and so on—if one explained the whole thing to them—the vast majority would say, "No, we don't want that at all."
I get the impression that if a proper referendum discussion was held, we would find—despite the smiles and smirks on the faces of some hon. Members—the great majority of people, who are not daft, would wake up and realise that they had been offered not a package for better constitutional government, but a package that would create frustration and add to the pressures for Scottish independence.
Let us discuss seriously and carefully among the people of Scotland and Wales whether independence is a good idea. There is a good argument for it, and it can be discussed logically and fairly, but devolution is a load of constitutional rubbish. It will create resentment, add to costs and create problems between the different democracies and administrations. It will create no good for Scotland or for Wales.
I may be wrong, as I am sure that some of my colleagues would agree that I may be wrong on other things. I hope, however, just in case I am right, that the Government will accept the simple propositions that I have advanced in the amendment. Why should there not be a minimum percentage? Will the Government say what on earth we can do about the West Loth: an question? If they do not face up to it, we shall create a serious problem in the future for other Parliaments and other Members of Parliament.
The Government should remember that the issue is what is best for the people. What we are doing today is not good for the people of Scotland, not good for the people of Wales and certainly not good for the people of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Alan Williams: I begin by welcoming my right hon. and hon. Friends to the Front Bench. In particular, I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) on his maiden speech at the Dispatch Box. It was a sincere speech, and commendably brief. I hope that he will help


to maintain such brevity on the part of others on the Front Bench and please the Back Benchers for many years to come.
I should make it clear at the start, lest there is any doubt en route, that I welcome the referendum. I have long felt that there is a wider role for the referendum in the constitutional process as a means of involving the general public. In the 1970s, I was one of those who urged on the Prime Minister the need for referendums on the Scotland and Wales Bills.
In January 1995, in a letter to the present Prime Minister, I argued that there could be no intellectual validity in the proposition that one could overturn an overwhelming, precise vote of 4:1 against a referendum on the tenuous argument that the majority of Welsh Members of Parliament happened to represent parties which had included devolution in their manifestos.
My hon. Friends' experience may be very different from mine, but in my constituency the election was not fought on the question of devolution. It was hardly an issue—the election was fought on the topics of health, education, jobs and homelessness.
I know that the reasoning about the inadequacy of the argument did not carry much weight with my hon. Friends, whom I bored with it in the Welsh group for several years. One can therefore imagine my delight, surprise and admiration for the clarity with which the Prime Minister must have advocated the case and made a convert of the present Secretary of State, almost at a stroke.
The proposed referendum is intended to be the first in a series of referendums. I want to raise questions that are—this may sound arrogant—of great importance to the House and the electorate. If government by referendum is to be part of the process, we must consider establishing some ground rules. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland referred yesterday to the process of seeking popular consent. We must maintain popular support for the process, and not frivolously turn support into cynicism and scepticism.
I listened with admiration to the remarks yesterday of my hon. Friends the Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—who also spoke on Friday—on a pre-legislative referendum. They argued that the people would not know what they would get when they voted in a referendum. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow referred to it as a pig in a poke; I contend that the animal is not that well defined: it might be a pig, a mouse or a tiger. We have no legislation to put before the electorate to allow the people to see what they would be voting for.
We will have a White Paper, but hon. Members who have been in this place for a reasonable time will know that the wording of a White Paper is not as precise as that of a Bill. That is why White Papers may be produced more rapidly. I am not being critical, but practical. The people will be voting on a measure with a looser presentation than the final legislation.
We must also recognise that there might be changes. Time and again, hon. Members have seen White Papers change when they are translated into legislation. We must also ask: if we maintain the principle of the sovereignty

of Parliament, can we rule out in advance the possibility of any changes to the Bill in Committee? In his excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said that the Government will put principles in front of the public. We are asking for a vote on principle, but we know that the details can alter the principle. That is why I argue that we must know the precise terms of the measure when we ask people to vote. We do not want to create cynicism when we are giving people a chance to be involved in Government decision making.
I warn hon. Members of another potential danger—it is a legitimate difference of opinion between my hon. Friend the Minister and me, and it must be addressed. Perhaps he can reassure me about the matter. My hon. Friend has argued in the past in favour of an enabling Bill. Such legislation is easier to draft, but it means essentially that the critical decisions appear in subsequent statutory instruments. At the time of Royal Assent, not even the House will know what final shape the animal will take. I also remind hon. Members that most statutory instruments are passed without debate—when debate occurs, it lasts for no more than an hour and a half—that most are passed without a vote and that none can be amended.
I do not pretend that my view is more valid than that of anyone else, but I have another question regarding this and any future referendums. Do the Government have a duty to ensure that there is a level democratic playing field in a referendum? That may sound strange, but our manifesto commitment is not to devolve, but to let the people choose whether we should devolve. We willed the referendum and we willed that the people should have the right to decide. If we believe in the democratic process, we must believe also in the right to hear from both sides.
If the electorate is to make a decision, it must be an informed decision. I shall abide by the people's decision, whatever it may be. At present, there is a danger that each referendum could be a David and Goliath contest: with the full panoply of governmental powers, resources and the information machine on one side ranged against the relatively unsupported representations on the other. In laying the ground rules, we must consider whether we should—and, if so, how—ensure that there is a balanced presentation of each case.
That question is particularly important in relation to the media. I ask not for financial resources for the campaign, but about the rules for broadcasters. We take it for granted that certain rules of equality must apply during a general election campaign. That is quite correct, as we are asking the people to make a very important decision. The referendums will deal with major constitutional issues, so is not the argument regarding equality of time, opportunity to present a case and right of reply equally valid?
I turn now to perhaps the most sensitive issue: freedom of speech for Back Benchers. I make it clear that we all understand the limitations on freedom of voting that apply in every political party. We know also that, while there is a conscience clause that allows us to abstain, one could argue that Back Benchers cannot vote against their party. Should a tighter rule apply in referendums? In the 1970s, in the great European Community debate—the most important constitutional decision to be taken in the post-war period—every Back Bencher was allowed to


speak as he or she saw fit. Labour Back Benchers were also allowed freedom of speech during the two devolution campaigns.
At the parliamentary Labour party meeting before the general election, we endorsed a standing order that guarantees hon. Members the right to freedom of speech. I put my point in this context. I am sure that the press reports that I read last weekend were maligning, ill-intentioned and a misrepresentation, but I was somewhat concerned by suggestions that the Secretary of State for Wales had said that it would be a disciplinary matter if Labour Members dared to speak against devolution.
I took great comfort in two other reports of speeches made by the Under-Secretary, in which he told the other political parties that Labour will not govern by diktat. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that statement applies to the Labour party? I genuinely believe that the Secretary of State has been misrepresented, and I will gladly give way now so that he can clarify his position—or he may wish to do so when he replies to the debate. I would like to be sure that there was neither threat nor intention behind his remarks.
I would like to think that, for several reasons. One is that it is the way in which we normally conduct our affairs on this side of the House. Secondly, I do not want my party to appear rather to follow the leader of the Scottish nationalists, who said as a condition of his support for the Bill that he would require Labour Back-Bench Members to be gagged. I do not want my Secretary of State and my party to look, as the nationalists appear to present themselves, afraid of the power of argument.
I am genuinely puzzled by the timing of the referendum votes. Why, I wonder, is the Welsh referendum to take place after the Scottish referendum? After all, the Scots, poor devils, have two questions to answer. They have two things on which to make up their minds. We in Wales have a much simpler decision. We have only one choice, yet we need another two weeks to make up our minds. I know that the Welsh are great talkers, but we can be decisive if encouraged. There are those who are cynical—of course, I am not one of them—who might feel that the plans are designed to enable my right hon. and hon. Friends to turn to the people of Wales and say, "Scotland has its Assembly because Scotland voted for an Assembly. That being so, you must vote for an Assembly in Wales." What a way in which to launch the great Welsh experiment in a healthy democracy—in effect, Glasgow has voted for Cardiff.
If a case for devolution stands, let it stand without stage management. Give it a chance to stand or fall on its merits. Like everyone else in this place, I shall abide by the decision of the House.

Sir Robert Smith: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the chance to make my maiden speech in a debate that so affects the country from which I come, and especially my constituency. West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine is a new constituency and, as one can tell from the length of the name, a creation of the boundary commission. It is not a constituency of one entity; rather it is a bringing together of several different areas.
I wish to pay tribute to the two hon. Members who previously represented parts of what is now the West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine constituency. I urge hon.

Members to try to remember the full name from time to time, and not to abbreviate it. Kincardine is an ancient area of Scotland and does not wish to be forgotten.
One of the two hon. Members who preceded me in the constituency is Mr. George Kynoch, who is no longer in this place. I pay tribute to his loyalty to the Conservative party, particularly to his loyalty as a Minister—a role which he took extremely seriously. The other hon. Member who represented part of my constituency is my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). Many right hon. and hon. Members will be aware of his standing in this place and of his capabilities. I can say that, on the doorstep, my hon. Friend is extremely popular in the part of my constituency that he used to represent.
There has been a sea change in the attitude of the Conservative party to the debate about the direction of the future of Scotland. It is the settled will of the people of Scotland that we should have a Scottish Parliament. Indeed, it is the logical and obvious way forward.
One of the problems, however, is the lumping together of legislation. There seems to be a different debate in Wales about what should happen there and the need for a referendum to test what is happening. There is a suspicion among Liberal Democrats that we are taking part in a debate about a referendum in Scotland, not on a matter of principle, but on worries that were expressed during the build up to the general election on the effect of such considerations in England—in other words, going ahead with the policies to which the Labour party was then committed.
My colleagues and I believe that the Bill, and the delay in bringing forward the referendum, is prolonging the much-needed requirement for a Scottish Parliament, which will be able to deal with the issues that affect my constituency and the rest of Scotland.
We have seen already today the way in which the House can operate. Questions were asked about education in England and Wales, and it seems that the Labour party in government are planning to abolish nursery vouchers, yet we hear that the Government are planning to continue with the voucher scheme in Scotland. It is surprising that, when matters of principle and technicality can surely be dealt with across Departments, those involved cannot see a way of abolishing vouchers in Scotland when a way has been found of abolishing them in England. I hope that a Scottish Parliament will enable us in Scotland to deal with the issues that will have an effect on us.
In my constituency, one of the main concerns at the forefront of the electorate's mind during the general election campaign was under-investment in education. It is sad that, again today, that has not been fully taken on board by the new Government. The crisis that is affecting our schools has not been fully recognised. I hope that the Government will recognise the urgency of the problem.
Another issue that is important in my constituency is the role of the private finance initiative in the future of the health service. It is the clear will of my constituents that management and control of clinical care should not be handed over to private companies. I am sure that the Government will be able to provide some reassurance on that front.
I think of those who previously represented parts of my constituency; I have in mind Sir Russell Fairgrieve and the late Alick Buchanan-Smith. There was a time when the Conservative party could grasp the need for a Scottish


Parliament and an accountable Scottish legislature. I commend to the House an excellent book written by Dr. James Mitchell, formerly of Edinburgh university and now of Strathclyde university; entitled, "Conservatives and the Union: A Study of the Conservative party". Unfortunately, the hon. Member who borrowed it from the Library is no longer an hon. Member, and has not yet managed to return it. That being so, I do not have a copy available to me.
I would only say from past reading of the book that the Conservative party was instrumental in the creation of the Scottish Office—a tier of government that needs to be held accountable to the people it is meant to serve. If we have such a tier of government in Scotland, the process of creating democratic accountability is an obvious next step.
The Liberal Democrats are extremely important in the context of this debate. The last thing my constituents want is a Parliament dominated by one part of Scotland and one party in Scotland, which is why a fair voting system is crucial to the acceptance of a Scottish Parliament—and, presumably, a Welsh Senate—and why the Liberal Democrats have played such a crucial role in the negotiations that have led to what has been agreed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention. I hope very much that we shall have a fair voting system to the Parliament and that fair voting will be embraced. Without it, there will be no parliamentary legitimacy.
Some people in the north-east of Scotland are concerned—it is a legitimate concern—about the domination of one party in the central belt. If we do not have a Scottish Parliament, I am pretty sure that, for the next five years, decisions that bear on the north-east of Scotland and are relevant to the Scottish Office will be dominated by one party and by one part of Scotland, because the Secretary of State is very much from one party, and it has many hon. Members who will make sure that he represents their part of Scotland. That being so, I urge all parts of Scotland to embrace the need for the Parliament.
I am disappointed about the delay and hope that, in Committee, the need to amend the Bill so that we do not need a referendum for Scotland will be recognised. That would enable us to get on with the real legislation. I hope also that the need for a referendum in Wales will be accepted, where the issue has not been so developed.
I urge the House not to delay any more that which is needed in Scotland. The House has a great deal of legislation with which to cope, and many Bills that bear on Scotland, which should be scrutinised, do not, unfortunately, receive scrutiny. There are many needs for reform in Scotland that are not even considered by the House because of delays. A means of dealing with the Scottish Office and the consequences for our constituents purely and only in Scotland within a Scottish Parliament is long overdue. I urge the House, in Committee, while accepting the need for a referendum in Wales, to delete the need for a referendum in Scotland.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I hope that the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) will accept my compliments for a fine speech.
I offer my compliments to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), who also made a fine speech. It is sometimes said that doctoral candidates are awarded their doctorates for persistence. The hon. Gentleman certainly deserves to be here for his remarkable persistence and consistency in fighting Edinburgh, West.
I offer extremely belated congratulations to my right hon. and old Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Dewar), and all of those other fine honourable fellows who adorn the Government Front Bench. I also offer my compliments to my hon. Friends who made their initial—we are supposed to call them maiden—speeches.
I promise to be brief, but I shall refer to two Scottish morning papers, which, with other papers in Scotland, are full of comments made by the governor of the Bank of Scotland in relation to constitutional changes. The Scotsman begins a front page article by stating:
Scotland's senior banker yesterday warned that he saw severe risks attaching to constitutional change both in Scotland and in Europe.
No doubt that will throw the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), whose spirited speech amused me no end, especially his slip of the tongue, because for many years he has been in opposition to the Government on numerous subjects, so why the Freudian slip? He was a very fine constituency Member for Glasgow, Cathcart, but, unfortunately, the good people of Castlemilk and elsewhere sent him elsewhere—to the deep south.
In its editorial this morning, the Daily Record had this to say about the senior banker:
Bank of Scotland governor Bruce Patullo—
not Portillo—
(an Englishman) yesterday took over from where Michael Forsyth left off-raising the spectre of Tartan VAT to pay for a Scottish Parliament.
He also claimed any new tax would discourage vital investment in Scotland by UK and overseas companies.
His comments, like Michael Forsyth's before him, fail to take account of the settled will of the Scottish people"—
and, no doubt, many thousands of his bank's clients. I regret to say that I am one of them. Perhaps the time has come for me to transfer my account.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: To the Co-op.

Dr. Godman: To the Co-operative bank, as suggested by my Welsh friend.
Mr. Patullo should remember that many clients of the Bank of Scotland voted for constitutional change. I have no doubt that there will be unintended—as well as anticipated—consequences to constitutional reform, but that should not deter us from taking this remarkable reform forward.
On referendums, my position is one of reserve, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). I believe that there are occasions when a referendum is appropriate. Let us look at the experience of the Irish Republic, where referendums are part of the constitution. I hope that the new Government there, when the Dail resumes on 7 June, will give serious thought to holding a referendum on certain articles in the constitution, but that is another matter.
Although I had initial doubts about the proposed referendum, I now fervently hope that the overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland will vote yes to both questions. I readily concede that it was not the first issue that was raised on the doorsteps of my new constituency. The issues raised were homelessness, crime on the streets, but there was an acknowledgment everywhere—I held six public meetings during the election campaign—that a Labour Government would usher in a Scottish Parliament. It was widely acknowledged that a Labour Government would honour that promise.

Mr. Edward Gamier: Does the hon. Gentleman think it right that, in addition to Scotsmen and Welshmen, European citizens who are not United Kingdom citizens should be able to vote in a referendum that will affect the whole of the United Kingdom?

Dr. Godman: I begin by apologising to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I called him a new boy yesterday, and that was utterly unwarranted. He has in fact been here before, and he and I were in Bosnia together last year.
Of course people resident in Scotland should have the right to vote in the referendum. They have chosen to live in Scotland. They are people of Scotland.
Over the past 18 years, Scotland has been governed appallingly—in an insensitive, intolerant way. I have said to Conservative Members of Parliament that, had Mrs. Thatcher when Prime Minister offered some concessions to the desire for a degree of autonomy, the Conservatives might not be in the parlous state that they are now in. I said that over the years to Scottish and English Conservative Members of Parliament, who chose to ignore that advice. I do not speak from hindsight.
I also believe that had a Tory Government been returned at the election we would now be witnessing the beginnings of the dismemberment of the United Kingdom, because many people who voted Labour would seriously be thinking of an independent Scotland as a future for themselves, their children and grandchildren. The biggest threat to Scotland came from the Conservative party, which was so decisively defeated on 1 May.
I offer three examples of that unsupportable form of government. First, the poll tax, which was introduced into Scotland in such a heavy-handed and insensitive manner. One of the finest speeches made during the passage of the legislation that introduced the poll tax was made in the other place by the late Willie Ross. It was a superb analysis and critique of that disgraceful measure.
The second example is the reorganisation of local government. The majority of Scots did not want the abolition of the regional and district councils. I must tell Conservative Members that many people in my constituency are suffering because of the disappearance of Strathclyde regional council and its remarkable management of social work and education services in my constituency. I should declare an interest, as my wife is a member of that council. It achieved quite remarkable improvements for the lives of many people, but the Conservative Government decided to be rid of it. Mrs. Thatcher always wanted to see the end of Strathclyde regional council. The way in which the Conservative Government managed local government in Scotland is to their eternal shame.
The third example of the rotten way in which the Conservative Government sought to govern Scotland was their attempt to privatise the supply of water in Scotland.
For those of my hon. Friends who are cautious about referendums, let me remind them of the quite remarkable referendum conducted by Strathclyde regional council on that very issue. It was an astonishing return. A million people posted off their answers to that referendum and 94 per cent. said that water in Scotland should remain under local authority control. I say to my hon. Friends, not least my old hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East, that without that astonishing referendum result, we would now have water companies in Scotland. Instead, we have a Government who are talking about bringing the management of water supplies under local authority control again.
Those are three examples of the rotten way in which the Conservative party governed Scotland. It is because of such insensitive, unsupportable government that many people want to see a Scottish Parliament.
A number of Scottish Conservative candidates will doubtless put themselves forward in the election. As I said yesterday to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), I fully expect to see his son as one of the candidates. He was a fine candidate in this election. He did not stand a cat in hell's chance of defeating my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for West Renfrewshire (Mr. Graham). Given my hon. Friend's shape, it was as well that it was not a physical clash.
But a Conservative candidate of the stature of Charlie Cormack could well be a member of the Scottish Parliament. With proportional representation, he and other Conservatives will have a good chance of securing some seats. As someone who has campaigned all his adult life for electoral reform, that is one of the features of our legislation that really thrills me. We in Scotland are to adopt a system similar to that in Germany, so the minority parties will have reasonable representation in that Parliament.
I would love to be the Minister with responsibility for fisheries in that Parliament, but that is for others to decide. Presumably, that job will be given to someone who does not know the difference between a cod and a haddock, but it is right and proper that there are Conservatives and others in that Parliament. We must not forget that 500,000 people in Scotland voted Conservative, and they do not have a single representative in the House. But if a similar proportion vote Conservative in the election to the Scottish Parliament, there will be a substantial number, albeit a minority, of Tory Members.
Therefore, I belatedly welcome the referendum. I know that we will have overwhelming support in my constituency and I look forward to the day when we have a Scottish Parliament. I am not too happy with the Royal high school. I should like to see an international architectural competition for the design of a new Parliament, but I can live with the Royal high school for five or six years at least.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I congratulate the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith). I am always slightly nervous of hon. Members who address the House without a note. It is a remarkable achievement and I am sure that he will make many similar contributions to the House. There was a tinge of controversy in his contribution in that he made the case for a referendum in Wales but not in Scotland, but I think that we can leave it at that.
I congratulate the Secretary of State for Wales on his appointment and I wish him well in his duties. I also congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), on assuming his new responsibilities. It was a refreshing change to hear them say on their appointments and subsequently that they want to move away from the kind of tribal politics that has dominated the House for 18 years and towards a progressive, inclusive and more co-operative style of politics.
I want to make my remarks in that spirit and to reciprocate. I hope that the Secretary of State and his colleagues will accept that listening to other points of view is one thing but, on occasion, I hope and expect that they will see the merit of arguments coming from different directions. Listening is one thing, but I am sure that occasionally they will see that not only is there merit in what other people say but that it might well be acted upon.
The Government have been elected on a decisive and clear mandate, part of which is to secure constitutional change not only in Wales and Scotland but in the other place. Not only is their majority decisive, but their mandate on constitutional change is decisive. The Leader of the Opposition is as responsible for that decisive mandate as anyone else, because he made it clear during the election campaign that the constitution was at the heart of the Conservative party's manifesto. He stood on a no change manifesto, a status quo manifesto, and he was so successful that his party was wiped out in Wales and Scotland.
There is no representative of the Conservative party from Wales or Scotland in the Chamber. We shall hear from the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), but the people of Wales will recognise that his constituency today will be not the people of Wales, but the Benches behind him. We will understand the context of his remarks.
The mood for change in Wales and elsewhere is obvious. it is all around us. We have had 18 years of a Conservative Government who have centralised power on a scale that we have not seen before. The Government constantly told us about the nanny state; the interfering state. But we now have the Thatcher state. Baroness Thatcher was as responsible as anybody for the centralisation of power in this place. This is now a powerful and dominating personality.
Currently, many people feel alienated from the democratic institutions which serve them. That was illustrated at its worst during the general election when the proportion of young voters between the ages of 18 and 24 was lower than at any other time in recent history. There is a message there. If people feel that they do not have a voice; if they feel alienated; if they feel that they have no influence over events, there is a real danger that they will channel their resources and energies in a different way. We allow that to happen at our peril.
Modern, mature and forward-looking democracies have recognised the dangers of over-centralisation and have acted decisively to check it. Different modern states in Europe have chosen different routes to achieve that. No one model is appropriate everywhere, but we in Wales are now mature enough to take this important step forward.
The Labour party believes that the setting up of the Assembly is the way forward. Others of us will argue that that body should be enhanced and its powers improved. Let me outline not only some of the reasons why we are ready to move forward but why the choice in the referendum should reflect the fact that there are different views in Wales about how we should move forward.
The first reason, often given in the Chamber and outside, is the growth of the quango state. The people of Wales find it distasteful and a negation of democracy that for 18 years a Government appointed their own to run Wales although they were decisively rejected time after time by the electorate. On no occasion did the Secretary of State, who appointed people to run our health service, our education funding councils and our training agencies, appoint people who were in tune with the aspirations of the people of Wales. He appointed people whom he knew would toe the Government line.
Secondly, we need to develop our relationship with Europe. Most people know that my party has a positive vision of that relationship. We respect the cultural and national diversity of Europe. The key to protecting cultural and national diversity within a system that is becoming more global by the minute is to ensure that decisions that affect people's lives are taken at the lowest possible level. There is a Welsh dimension and a national dimension, and we should grasp the opportunity to ensure accountable government at that Welsh level.
By strengthening our democracy at home, we strengthen our links with Europe. We need to strengthen those links at a time when regional policy is being considered in Europe and important decisions that affect our farmers are being made. An elected body in Wales should have strong links with important European institutions.
Any elected body should be robust enough to protect us from significant policy changes made in Westminster with which we profoundly disagree. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) made an eloquent speech about what had been foisted on the people of Scotland during 18 years of Conservative rule. The problem that some of us have with the current plans for the Assembly is that if it does not have at least limited legislative powers, and if the framework for legislation remains in Westminster, it will not be robust enough to protect Wales from what happens here.
It is also important to show to the people of Wales that the Government's proposal is different from that offered in 1979. It is crucial that we understand the lessons of 1979. That was a fateful year for Wales. We have a rerun of 1979 at our peril. The Government must show that what they have on offer now is different from what was on offer in 1979.
Given that there is common ground between those of us in progressive politics who believe that the way forward is constitutional change, we should make it clear that the no vote in the referendum is for those people who want the status quo. The danger in allowing only one question in the referendum in Wales is that some of us who want the Assembly to have greater powers may be tempted to register our preference by voting no, and that would be


disastrous. If that happened, the vote would be meaningless, because the no vote would hide the votes of those who want to go that little bit further.

Mr. Martyn Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jones: No, because my contribution will be short.
There is merit, in the spirit of inclusive politics, in giving the people in Wales who want to go that step further the opportunity to do so. Our preference—we fought the election on it—is for a multi-option referendum. We may not be able to argue that point in the Chamber: we shall have to wait and see.
I ask the Government to consider giving the people of Wales the opportunity to vote on, at the very least, the legislative and tax-varying powers that are on offer in Scotland. Why not include that in the debate on the Welsh Assembly? I accept that the Government are perfectly entitled to have a referendum on the question as it is framed in the Bill, but they could include all shades of opinion on the right side—if I may put it like that—of the debate.
The Government have introduced the Bill in a spirit of co-operation and on the principle of a move towards inclusive politics. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Neath was right to say that it may be a long time before we have another opportunity to legislate on an elected body for Wales. Some people in Wales may find it strange that, faced with the ballot paper, all they are offered is a straight choice between the Labour party's position and that of the Conservative party. There are no Conservative Members in Wales, yet its position is preserved in the Bill. The Government should accept that, by going that little stage further and including all shades of opinion in Wales, they will be able to gauge the opinion of all the people in Wales.
All of us involved in this debate who fall on the side of positive change carry a great responsibility. We know from the history books or from being Members of the House that constitutional change is a momentous task. It has often ended in failure. Our children and future generations will rightly criticise us and may find it hard to forgive us if we get it wrong now. Wales is now ready for leadership, ready to consider co-operative politics, and ready to act on the desire for change.
I accept that there are no absolute truths in this debate: we must all recognise that. We have shown that there is a way forward to accommodate all shades of opinion. I hope that the Labour party will grasp that opportunity, so that the people of Wales can vote for meaningful change. If the Government are prepared to do that, we will be content to leave it up to the people of Wales to decide what sort of body they want. I am confident that if they are given that opportunity, not only will they vote for change, but will embrace change, as a modern, mature democracy that is part of the European community of nations. I hope that the Government will respond positively.

Ms Julie Morgan: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this debate, which is so important to the future of Wales.
I am proud to be the first woman to be elected Member of Parliament for Cardiff, North. I am the first woman Member of Parliament in the city of Cardiff, and one of four women elected in Wales on 1 May. That is still only four women out of 40 Welsh Members, but it is four times as many as in 1992. This is the beginning of women taking their rightful place in the politics of Wales, and particularly in the Welsh Assembly; provided that we achieve a yes vote in the referendum.
Amazing as it may seem, until this election, Wales had only ever had four women Members of Parliament: Eirene White, Dorothy Rees, Megan Lloyd George and my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). Dorothy Rees represented the Barry constituency for about 18 months. At that time, it included Whitchurch, Rhiwbina and Lisvane, which are now part of Cardiff, North.
Labour now holds all the Cardiff seats, for the first time for 27 years. In 1966–70, the old Cardiff, North constituency was represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who spoke in the debate last night. It is fitting that the capital of Wales—which will be the seat of the assembly—will be wholly Labour when it is set up, subject to the Bill being passed by the House and a yes vote in the referendum.
Cardiff, North—the constituency that I now represent—is very diverse. Its northern tip is the village community of Tongwynlais, which lies in the shadow of the Taff gorge linking Cardiff to the valleys to the north. Cardiff's wealth was built on coal brought down from the valleys. It would squeeze through the Taff gorge, which contains the River Taff, the Glamorgan canal, the Taff Vale railway and the now much-widened A470.
The coal has now mainly gone, but the road to Cardiff, the A470—choked by commuter traffic—goes through the heart of my constituency. It goes through the huge motorway at Coryton, where the main east-west and north-south routes through Wales meet, and on down to the other giant interchange at Gabalfa, where the Western avenue cuts through the estates of Mynachdy and Gabalfa that lead to north Llandaff—famous for the Cow and Snuffers pub, which was much frequented by Benjamin Disraeli during his visits to Wales. Nowhere is the need for an integrated transport system more obvious than on the A470 through Cardiff, North.
Next to the Gabalfa interchange lies the Heath hospital complex. Along with the dental hospital, it has 1,000 beds and is the largest hospital complex in Europe. It is not always popular with residents, because of the parking problems. One of the best-known residents of the area near the hospital is the former Speaker of the House of Commons, Lord Tonypandy.
Cardiff, North has a high percentage of white-collar professional workers, and 83 per cent. of its residents own their homes. Many are civil servants working in Government buildings, and many have suffered from the job insecurity that has been caused by the privatisation, contractorisation and short-term contracts that have become commonplace in public service. They are all looking for a Government who are proud of their public services and recognise the worth of their staff.
Many jobs have been lost altogether to privatisation. The Atomic Weapons Establishment in Llanishen no longer makes parts for nuclear warheads. The skills of the


workers have sadly been dispersed to the four winds because of the failure of earlier Governments to prepare for the winding down of the defence industry by diversifying. Five hundred highly skilled precision engineers have been lost to Cardiff. Their skills could have been used positively for civilian purposes. Companies House in Gabalfa, the Inland Revenue in Llanishen, the employment services department of the Welsh Office—all those have been subjected to that policy of forced insecurity. Her Majesty's Stationery Office has been privatised and closed down.
I have already mentioned that, for a brief time, Dorothy Rees represented the villages that were incorporated into Cardiff in 1967. Whitchurch is a distinct community with a bustling high street, which was really the battleground of the recent general election campaign. On Saturday mornings, I would contest the space on the high street with my opponent, Gwilym Jones. Gwilym Jones was the Member of Parliament for Cardiff, North for 14 years, living in the ward of Lizvane and St Mellons—which, incidentally, has the only Conservative member of Cardiff city council. Gwilym Jones rose to the rank of junior minister in the Welsh Office in the last Parliament after many years of public service, both as a city councillor and as a Member of Parliament.
As I said earlier, I am pleased to speak in the debate on the referendum for devolution. I campaigned strongly for devolution in my election campaign, and held a packed public meeting in Rhiwbina—which is the garden suburb in northern Cardiff—wholly devoted to the subject.
I believe that it is important for the practical benefits of a Welsh Assembly to be spelled out in the course of our campaign for a yes vote. We no longer want the people of Wales to have to put up with a standard of living that is 17 per cent. lower than the British average. We no longer want the incidence of heart disease and breast cancer to be greater in Wales than in the rest of Britain. We no longer want the poverty of aspiration that affects so many people in Wales, where a recent survey of women on benefits showed that seven out of 10 considered that they would be worse off, or no better off, if they took a job, and where the increase in child care facilities that can unlock the door to opportunity have passed the lower income groups by.
By bringing government closer to the people, a Welsh Assembly will be able to take the lead in tackling the practical issues that face people every day in Wales. In a country of 3 million people, we can get to grips with those issues. We can have a child care strategy that targets those most in need, and can come up with solutions that are unique to Wales and will tackle specifically Welsh issues.
Devolution is about people-friendly, women-friendly policies. It is not for constitutional lawyers or for politicians; its purpose is to make a real difference to the lives of all the people in Wales. With a yes vote in the referendum, we will be able to achieve that.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) on her maiden speech. It was a model of its kind, in which she not only described her constituency, paying tribute to her predecessor Gwilym Jones—whom all Conservative

Members remember fondly—but put down a marker in expressing the hope that the policies that she supports will truly benefit the people whom she has been sent here to represent. That is a good start for any new Member.
There are a huge number of fundamental questions for the Government to answer, concerning the very nature of the devolution proposals, before we get near to the detail of the actual legislation. There are questions about the stability of the Barnett formula, about the tartan tax—how Scots could raise extra income tax, or even cut income tax, without creating new tensions between the Scots and the English, on whom Scottish public spending is so dependent—and about the inequality of representation and powers among Scottish, Welsh and English Members of Parliament.
Those and other issues need to be dealt with. They were largely responsible for undermining the credibility of the 1978 proposals. Dealing with them is vital to the stability of the arrangements, and, ultimately, to the stability of the United Kingdom, but they have yet to be answered by the Government. No wonder they call devolution in Scotland unfinished business.
With such Labour dominance in both Scotland and Wales, there is a great temptation for Government supporters to regard the questions raised about the Bill and its two offspring as somehow irrelevant. That will be a constant danger for the Government: they will rely on the size of their majority, rather than on the force of their arguments. No doubt we Conservatives used to do the same, but that simply reinforces the point that great majorities are a threat to the quality of legislation.
For example, it has been asked regularly throughout the debate on what basis the discredited and reduced number of Conservative Members representing entirely English constituencies can raise such questions at all. Leaving aside the half a million voters in Scotland who did vote Conservative, let us start from first principles. The ultimate sovereignty of the Scottish and Welsh peoples is a fact. Whatever the niceties of international law, Scotland and Wales can claim the right of self-determination if that is what they want; but, in speech after speech, supporters of devolution tell the House that they are fervent supporters of the Union. Indeed, yesterday the Secretary of State for Scotland specifically rejected the suggestion that there should be a third question in the Scottish referendum to give voters the option to reaffirm their support for the Union. He said that that would imply that those who are going to vote yes in a referendum are the enemies of the United Kingdom.
It is for exactly the same reason that the plea of the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) that some other options should be put in the referendum will be rejected by Ministers. It opens up the whole argument about where the process is actually leading. If I may say so to the Secretary of State for Scotland: if the cap fits, wear it.
The argument often promulgated by proponents of devolution—we have heard it today—is that a Scottish Parliament would have blocked the poll tax. The pros and cons of the poll tax are not the issue here; the question is whether a Scottish Parliament will behave as though it had a mandate superior to that of the Parliament here at Westminster. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister set the record straight. With his customary lack of tact in regard to Scottish affairs, he said, "Sovereignty will rest with me, as an English Member of Parliament."
The Prime Minister's underlying statement is, of course, right. All parts of the United Kingdom are subject to the absolute sovereignty of Parliament. That is what it is to be part of the United Kingdom. To enact a policy that questions that truth is to question the very basis of the whole constitution of the Union. The very idea of something called a Scottish Parliament is anathema to the concept of the union of the Parliaments. This, here, is Scotland's Parliament. If Scotland wants its own Parliament again, the union of the Parliaments is effectively ended.
A Scottish Parliament which, as some people expect, will challenge the mandate of Westminster in Scotland, and which will be based upon the Claim of Right of the Scottish people to self-government, will be based principally on nationalistic principles. Therein lies our claim that this schizophrenic arrangement is set to destabilise the Union between Scotland and England and that between Wales and England.
How will that happen in practice? Conflict between Westminster and Edinburgh is inevitable, not least over the mechanism for calculating how much the English taxpayer should continue to support Scottish public expenditure. Tensions and disputes are currently resolved behind the closed doors of Cabinet unity. They are set to burst into the open. If the arrangement works well, the demand will be for more powers to be transferred. If it seems not to work, the excuse will be that it needs more powers. Success or failure—either way the demand will be, "Give us more powers."
The extent and legitimacy of Scottish representation at Westminster will be increasingly questioned. The scene will be set for the breakdown of the settlement between Scotland and England that has provided such benefits to both countries for hundreds of years. That is why the process sets a sickly smile on the faces of the nationalists. They know that a Scottish Parliament will be the mother of the separatism that they seek.
It is extraordinary that the Bill should be the first one that the new Government should present, and it betrays the reality of the Government. The new Labour Government are brimming with optimism and self-confidence. They are ready for any challenge to their considerable mandate and are prepared to brush aside the time-consuming irritations presented by Her Majesty's Opposition. Their programme is long on aspiration, but they are depressingly short on policy specifics in the areas where specifics are so sorely needed.
A windfall tax, a training scheme and the abolition of the assisted places scheme hardly inspire or will transform the country. Bravado and press releases are no substitute for substantive policies. Just getting the Tories out will not solve the problems of crime, insecurity at work or deficient public services. The twin icebergs of public expenditure control and our European partners' federalist intentions are two great obstacles blocking the way of the new ship of state. The officers on the bridge carry on their task with dash and with the certainty that they are unsinkable, but the thinness of their real policies will be torn like the plates of the Titanic. Their riveting sound bites, hammered so lovingly, will snap and the cold water of reality will rush in.
Let us hope for better, but there is little sign of a real five-year Government programme. Instead, this whole Parliament is set to be dominated by changes to the

constitution, but this drive does not come from the ordinary voter. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, even in Scotland and Wales few voters place devolution at the top of their list of priority issues. No number of extra politicians in Edinburgh and Cardiff will shorten health service waiting lists, or create jobs, except for the politicians themselves, who will increase their expense accounts and the number of their hangers-on.
The real drive of the Government's proposals comes from the party interest and not the national interest. The programme is designed to gerrymander the constitution in the interests of the Labour party and its acolytes. It is born not out of high principle, but out of the sheer frustration of being out of office for 18 years.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: I shall finish the point and then give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Rather than blame themselves for nearly two decades of exile, Labour Members blamed the system and have found themselves elected and determined to change it. Islington-based Ministers now grappling with the real questions of government who heard the hon. Member for Linlithgow on Friday and yesterday should now wish that some of the baggage from opposition had been left behind on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Graham: The hon. Gentleman spoke about gerrymandering. Not long ago, Scotland was subjected, by a Tory Government, to one of the biggest gerrymandering exercises that was ever forced on it. That was the gerrymandering of local government. The Tory Government gerrymandered boundary changes and pushed out of the road one of our most successful local authorities, Strathclyde. We should not have to listen to a Tory who probably did not take part in any of the Scottish debates talking about us being gerrymandered out of the door. The people of Scotland will not have gerrymandering. Our referendum will be debated publicly and the people will have the right to put their cross on a ballot paper.

Mr. Jenkin: I fail to understand why I am of the least concern to the hon. Gentleman. I am one of a thin number of Conservative Members. All we have are arguments, and if I can excite the hon. Gentleman to such an extent, I can only conclude that my arguments cause him some anxiety.
In Scotland, as in Wales, the real reason for the devolution policy is that Labour despaired of being elected with a majority in Westminster. Now that there is a Labour Government, the need for a Labour-dominated Parliament in Edinburgh has passed. Only the nightmare of the commitment to proceed remains. What exactly are the decisions that will be delegated to the proposed Scottish Parliament that cannot be delegated to the Scottish Grand Committee, except the power to raise the tartan tax? It is that and the greater permanence of Labour domination that has hooked the Administration on the commitment, and all this came as a dawning realisation on the new Labour leadership.
The questions are unanswerable, the scheme is illogical, the resulting mess will be unstable, and the tartan tax is the only feature that distinguishes this mess from the mess


that helped to scupper the last Labour Government. That is why we are here now. New Labour's answer to all that was to present the Bill for two-question referendums in Scotland and in Wales to try to draw the sting out of the illogicality of it all. There can be little doubt that new Labour, Islington Labour, would like to drop devolution—it is a hangover from the old Labour party, and the tartan tax runs counter to all the messages on tax that new Labour transmits—but they could not, because new Labour and Scottish Labour are deeply divided.
Scottish Labour hates nothing more than the smiling face of the Minister without Portfolio, and it seethes against the spending caps imposed by London new Labour. Scottish Labour is old Labour and chafes against its new master in Downing street. That is what drives the devolution policy—Scottish Labour versus new Labour. Ironically, the sticking plaster of the referendum policy that was conceived by new Labour in London to heal the breach was the final insult to Scottish Labour. One minute the Secretary of State for Defence was arguing passionately for Scottish self-government and against a referendum, and the next he was submissively accepting the diktat from London that his policy had been changed. That was followed shortly afterwards by the resignation of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) from his shadow post.
A Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly are but two of Labour's seven major proposed constitutional changes. It also wants regional English assemblies, including a new Greater London council and a Bill to incorporate the rulings of the European Commission of Human Rights directly into United Kingdom law, giving power to another set of European judges to tell us what to do. Those are political questions that should be decided democratically in this Parliament. Labour proposes a Bill to reform the House of Lords, a commission on proportional representation for Westminster and, of course, a new European Communities (Amendment) Bill to transfer yet more decisions from Westminster to Brussels.
Those are the seven pillars of unwisdom, the seven veils to cover the true nakedness of Labour's programme for government. They are the seven deadly sins that the Government intend wilfully to commit against our present political stability and prosperity. Most of the damage that a majority party can do to the economy, to public services, to business and commerce and even to foreign policy is reversible, or at least repairable. However, the guardianship of our constitution is an inalienable trust which a Government should never betray. It is like the quality of our environment and the preservation of our natural heritage. Any damage done there is irreversible. Once destroyed, institutions and relationships are irretnevable. That is why the decisions on these issues are so absolutely crucial.
Therefore, I plead that we take the two great measures that will follow this one on the Floor of the House in a Committee of the whole House so that we can consider them fully and absolutely, as all constitutional measures should be considered. The House should take note of how the Secretary of State prevaricated on that question. Why will he not give the same assurance for the Scotland and Wales Bills as he has given for this Bill? Does he think

that they are somehow less important or less constitutional, or does he have some tortuous new logic that he feels will entitle the Government to manoeuvre its huge majority like tanks on Salisbury plain? Is he suggesting that a referendum—held in only parts of the United Kingdom and, moreover, held in the heady honeymoon of a new Government and before the final, amended terms of the proposals are known—is a substitute for proper parliamentary scrutiny?
The Secretary of State speaks of the need for
a broadly based consensus for change."—[Official Report, 21 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 720.]
The Bill invites the Scots and Welsh to lunge at an unconsidered, ill-thought-out false panacea that will lead to the disillusion and dissolution which I know that he sincerely wishes to avoid. So why the rush? The Secretary of State opines:
The measure is a deceptively simple one."—[Official Report, 21 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 715.]

Its simplicity is indeed the method of its deception. The Government's business managers have seen the dangers. Genuine extended debate on these great issues would be the Government's Maastricht. The facade of party unity would quickly fracture. The Government are like fugitives scuttling across the strand at low water in the twilight, anxious to reach the far shore before the tide of reality comes in.
In 1945, the Select Committee on Procedure gave the House clear protection. The Committee contained such luminaries as Sidney Silverman, Dick Crossman, Hugh Gaitskell and Maurice Webb. At least we can say that old Labour recognised the constitutional and parliamentary proprieties. The Committee recorded the then Government's commitment never to prevent any Bill of first-class constitutional importance from being taken in Committee on the Floor of the House. It even gave examples:
for instance of the Bill for the Parliament Act 1911, or the Statute of Westminster 1931.
The new Labour Government appear ready to set about our constitution with all the subtlety of a General Pinochet, who achieved a great deal by referendum. For a Conservative, at least our constitution is the basic foundation of our nation, of our prosperity and of our society—

Ms Rosemary McKenna: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: I am just winding up. I am obviously winding the hon. Lady up.
All constitutions reflect history, whether written or unwritten. They are established over time or by revolution. The constitution defines the nature and character of its country, of the people that it governs. Our constitution is unique. It is the living archive of every historic event that has occurred in these islands for at least 1,000 years. That is what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was referring to when he mentioned the thousand years of British history. To assert that Britain did not exist until the Act of Union sounds a little Scotocentric, if I may say so.
Our modern constitution has served us all remarkably well. It has supported the stability and strength of the nation through the days of empire, the reform and


extension of the franchise, the years of relative decline and two world wars to today's prosperous and outward-looking nation. It has protected the freedom of the people through periods when, elsewhere in the world, freedom and democracy not long ago seemed to have become a passing fancy.
Our historic constitution, from the monarch to the parish council, is fundamentally our country and our nation. It is the essence of what it is to be English, Scottish or Welsh and British. It truly is the United Kingdom. It was our birthright when we inherited it and it should be for our children to inherit.
Whether one venerates the blood shed by cavalier or by roundhead, Jacobite or Hanoverian, spitfire pilot or the miner down the pit, their separate sacrifices are our single precious inheritance. We squander it at our peril, and the contempt of the Government for that history underlies the great betrayal that they are about to commit on this country.

Mrs. Anne McGuire: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make my first speech in the House in this historic debate on the referendums for a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. Having listened to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), it is somewhat ironic that I stand here representing the constituency of Stirling. I offer my congratulations to other hon. Members who have made their first speech this afternoon. Before I embark on some comments on the Bill, I should like to make a few preliminary and traditional remarks.
First, I place on record my thanks to hon. Members and officers of the House who have greatly assisted me in the bewildering transition from the outside world. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Ms McKenna), I have been exposed to the undoubted wit of the London cabby, one of whom told me that he did not know how a married woman could make a maiden speech. As we say in Scotland, "He'll ken noo."
I have also been overwhelmed by some of the accolades that have been thrown my way since I was elected some three weeks ago, not least that of being made an honorary vice-president of the Glasgow university shinty club. I understand that my one perk, which I shall of course declare in the Register of Members' Interests, is that I am allowed to play for the team.
I should like to record my own tribute to my predecessor, Michael Forsyth. I have a confession to make. Like many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I suspect, I have struggled to find words adequate to describe the previous Member of Parliament for Stirling. He was a man of many talents, a self-confessed political Houdini, who excited great emotion in Scotland and beyond. He was undoubtedly a consummate politician who rarely shied away from controversy and he pursued issues as he saw them. He also acknowledged the tension in his relationship with many Scots.
Although I do not share Michael Forsyth's political beliefs and regret many of the policies that his party implemented, I recognise that in the House he was an assiduous, diligent and effective Member of Parliament for Stirling. He also had a sense of humour, which, it must be said, sometimes was self-deprecating. Some 18 months

before the election he told me that we would both have fun on the campaign trail. I am not sure whether his idea of fun was for me to stand here and for him not to. As an opponent, I found him unfailingly courteous and I am pleased to acknowledge his generous words to me on the morning of 2 May when the result was announced. I wish him and his family well in whatever the future holds for them.
I am also pleased to recognise the debt that I owe to Harry, now Lord, Ewing, who represented Stirling town until the boundaries were redrawn in 1983. Lord Ewing is still remembered by the good folk of the town as a man of courtesy and integrity.
I am privileged to have a number of my constituents here in the House of Commons, including my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), and for Glasgow, Baillieston (Mr. Wray) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Robertson). I have to advise them now, however, that if they have constituency problems on which they wish to consult me, they can queue up like everyone else on a Friday evening.
I know that I will vie with other hon. Members if I claim that my constituency is one of the most beautiful in Britain, but, in all honesty, Stirling is. It is also an area of deep historical significance. The town that gives its name to the constituency is dominated by the impressive Stirling castle, a fortified rock that goes back into the mists of time. The castle is surrounded by buildings of note such as the Church of Holy Rude and the Argyll Lodges. It is no wonder that the town, which is the traditional gateway to the highlands, is at the centre of an expanding tourist industry. Full credit must be given to the partnership between the Labour local authority and the tourist board for developments in the area.
The constituency stretches over 800 square miles, from Tyndrum and Crianlarich in the north to the villages of Strathblane, Balfron, Drymen and Killearn in the west and onwards to the famous bonny banks of Loch Lomond. It also includes the Trossachs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said, within the Trossachs is Loch Katrine, which is a monument to Victorian values—the Victorian values that recognised that there was public good in providing a free and efficient water supply to the industrial town of Glasgow. Those are the Victorian values that we should applaud.
As well as being an area of outstanding historical and cultural distinction, the constituency is home to rural communities that are struggling to alleviate disadvantage and communities that are trying to restore hope and optimism for the future. Communities such as Raploch will undoubtedly benefit from the Government's welfare to work programme. The Stirling area also has one of the highest percentages in Scotland of those earning below £2.50 an hour. On behalf of the low-paid in my constituency, I welcome the commitment to introduce a national minimum wage.
I must also note that the constituency contains the small city of Dunblane. That community was visited by such tragedy on 13 March 1995 that it is still difficult fully to comprehend its emotional impact. On behalf of the parents, families and the wider community of Dunblane, I welcome the Government's intention to extend the ban on handguns.
The area in and around Stirling is steeped in Scottish history. Rob Roy McGregor is buried in the village of Brig o' Turk. At Bannockburn, Robert the Bruce defeated the English horsemen of King Edward as they got bogged down in the marsh made even more soggy by Scotland's excellent June weather. Later this year in Stirling, we will celebrate the 600th anniversary of the battle of Stirling bridge, where Sir William Wallace, the one who did not have an Australian accent or blue woad on his face, inflicted yet another defeat on our English neighbours.
We have moved on since then. The area saw so much bloodshed in earlier and more turbulent times as we tried to come to terms with the fact that we all shared this small island. As its democratic representative, I am privileged and pleased to be here to offer my support for the Bill, which will pave the way for the development of a Scottish Parliament. That will be a monumental development in the country's constitution.
I do not expect the current Secretary of State to don a tartan plaid and to put blue woad on his face to lead the yes-yes campaign. In its own way, however, the establishment of a Scottish Parliament is about being brave hearted. It is about recognising the sentiments and aspirations of the people in Scotland to move towards a more modern and decentralised government for this country.
The Scottish people have consistently shown that they do not want separation. The results on 1 May only underlined the fact that the nationalists have lost the 15 general elections since the second world war. The people in Scotland want something different from and better than what the status quo offers them.
My predecessor in Stirling mounted a political campaign and built a reputation as the so-called guardian of the Union. He saw himself as a knight in shining armour who was trying to save the Scottish people from themselves. He challenged the assertion that the Scottish people wanted a Parliament and, with Conservative colleagues, he threatened political mayhem in the new Parliament if subsequent legislation for that Parliament was made on the basis of a general election mandate. They claimed that the aspiration for a Scottish Parliament was more to do with the fevered imagination of Labour and Liberal Democrat politicians than the
settled will of the Scottish people
Well, the Scottish Parliament will be anchored by a distinct positive decision of the people of Scotland. It will be secured by their consent as well as its ability to vary tax. The referendum will give the House the clear unequivocal answer to those who challenge the aspirations of people in Scotland to have greater autonomy over their domestic political agenda. It will further ensure that the new Parliament will not become a political hostage to those who think that they know better. Those people were so woefully out of touch with the Scottish and Welsh people that they suffered complete electoral humiliation on I May.
The Bill will be a springboard to a Scottish Parliament, a devolved Parliament within the partnership of the United Kingdom. It will lift this country's constitution into the 21st century. It will be the realisation of a dream for so many, not least my right hon. Friend the Secretary

of State for Scotland. It will strengthen the partnership of the United Kingdom, because it will be solidly anchored by the positive consent of the Scottish people.
A Parliament that has confidence in itself should have the confidence to give away some of its power because it should recognise that its legitimacy and strength come from meeting the aspirations of its people and not by crushing them. I am pleased to offer my support to the Bill.

Mr. Andrew George: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech. I congratulate hon. Members on the quality of their maiden speeches, which I shall try to match.
I should like to take this opportunity to make a bit of history by saying:
Me am beth hanow
Heb dewath ha bry
Bisgwethack rag nevra
Those words are Cornish. They were spoken by a blacksmith from St. Keverne, in my constituency, where I come from.
That blacksmith was known locally as "An Got', which is Cornish for the smith, and was called Michael Joseph. He led an uprising from the constituency just one month short of 500 years ago. This weekend, that uprising will be re-enacted when a large band of Cornish people will march 330 miles to London to celebrate and commemorate the Cornishmen's storming of London. Sadly, that attack was not as successful as we would have liked.

Mr. Alex Salmond: There will be a better result this time.

Mr. George: Yes, that is what I intend.
Michael Joseph,"An Gof', marched to London with a band of 15,000 Cornishmen. Sadly, he was summarily hanged, drawn and quartered and dragged through the streets of this city.
In defiance of the then King, he said, roughly translated:
I shall have a name perpetual and a fame permanent and immortal.
To prove that, the celebration of that uprising will start from my constituency at the weekend. It will be an important commemoration for us. I believe that I am supposed to mention my predecessors on this occasion—the then local Member, William Antron, supported the rebellion. In 1508, the Charter of Pardon, resulting from the rebellion, gave the Cornish Parliament the right to allow or disallow
any Statute, Act, ordinance, provision, restraint or proclamation…made by the King, his heirs, successors, or the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cornwall, or their council.
That charter represented an accommodation of the distinctiveness of Cornwall.
I have chosen to make my maiden speech in this debate because I want to support those who recognise the distinctiveness of those parts of these lands that take pride in their heritage and culture. That sentiment binds the people together across the whole of our land.
When the Liberal Democrats won the St. Ives seat earlier this month, it was one of the last results to be announced. I pointed out that, with our result, it became clear that, for the first time, the traditional Celtic nations of Scotland, Wales and Cornwall were not represented by a single Conservative Member.

Mr. Paul Tyler: A Tory-free zone.

Mr. George: Yes, indeed.
Perhaps the Conservatives are now reconsidering their traditional opposition to electoral reform in those nations. A number of speakers have already ably argued that.
The general election marked the retirement of the former Member for St. Ives, David Harris. I was delighted to pay him a warm tribute when the result was announced and I am pleased to have the opportunity to repeat it today. Many people know that he retired in tragic circumstances. He was regarded with warmth and deep respect by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Since my election to the House, I have had conversations with older, long-standing Members and their respect and warm regard for him has come across strongly. He was a hard-working constituency Member of Parliament, and he will be remembered in the constituency as a gracious and honourable man. I offer him my best wishes for his future.
There are many parallels between the St. Ives constituency and the other Celtic nations mentioned today. The constituency stretches from the most southerly point of Great Britain at the Lizard to the Land's End peninsula and across to the Isles of Scilly. It includes St. Michael's Mount. Even with the important towns of Helston, Penzance, Hayle, St. Ives, St. Just, Porthleven and Marazion, it is a largely rural constituency. It is, of course, renowned for its scenery, its beaches and its occasional sunshine. Its traditional industries of farming and fishing are still very important to the area. Unfortunately, the last two mines at Geevor closed 10 years ago.
The constituency is well known as a holiday destination. I would wager—and this is not an offer of cash for questions—that the whole House would agree that west Cornwall and Scilly are among the most attractive places in these lands.
Alongside—or, perhaps, despite—the beauty of the area, however, Cornwall is becoming renowned for its poverty and deprivation. It has had the lowest wages in the country and among the highest levels of unemployment anywhere. Even while unemployment was allegedly falling in other parts of the country, it was and still is rising in Cornwall. It is an area that has suffered a great deal of deprivation and faced enormous problems. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), came to speak to some of the workers at St. Ivel because the closure of the factory will have an enormous impact on unemployment in the area. It is an issue on which I shall be working hard in the coming weeks and months.
The area also has a deep-seated housing problem for local people, with high levels of second-home ownership hand in hand with high levels of homelessness and a lack of affordable housing.
Like Scotland and Wales, Cornwall is known for its strong sense of belonging, of community and of place. If the total contribution of our existence on this planet were

to measured purely in the profit and loss accounts, Bills and debates such as this would be pointless and there would be little point in defending the interests of places such as Cornwall. If a national audit were all about measuring the value of pride, despite the depths of adversity Cornwall and Scilly would be one of the most wealthy places in these islands.
Even now, there are pressures on all places—especially Cornwall—to lose their identity and pride. To paraphrase, Matthew Arnold once said that it is inevitable that a centralised kingdom will work to render its dominion homogeneous. That is what I think the debate today is all about; it is to keep the differences and to celebrate and encourage the diversity in this land.
In the case of Cornwall—and no doubt Wales and Scotland—a place that was once so distinctive is under threat of becoming indistinguishable from everywhere else. But whether or not one was born in Cornwall—and this no doubt applies to Scotland, England and Wales as well—many people come to the area and recognise its importance and strength. They get involved in the local community, which we welcome. It is a broad and welcoming community, which celebrates diversity within it as well as diversity in the nation as a whole.
Of course, the Cornish character is deeply egalitarian. If someone gets a little bit uppity, the Cornish are always swift to put him in his place and delight in doing so. Therefore, as a Cornishman born and brought up in the constituency—I have worked there and my wife is from there—I am immensely proud to have been elected as the constituency's representative. It is a great honour to be its Member of Parliament. There is nowhere else on earth that I would rather represent.
During my travels around the constituency, both before and during the election, I met a large number of people. Early in the campaign, a cousin of mine came up to me and said, "Well, I don't suppose you could do worse than that shower." I guess that by "that shower" he was referring to the Conservative Members sitting to my right. By Cornish standards, it was praise indeed; by my cousin's standards, it was the highest accolade known to man. Such is the level of accolade in Cornwall.
When touring the constituency during the election, I would try to stop and chat to as many people as possible. I would often be greeted with, "Yeau Pard, woz on eh?"—which translated means, "Good day my very good friend and most esteemed colleague. How on earth are you? Please tell me what has been going on in your life lately, if you don't mind me being so bold as to ask." It loses a lot in the translation. One conversation that I remember well at St. Just not so long ago went, "Where have you been lately?" The answer was, "I've been off on a world tour." "Well," he was asked, "where exactly have you been?" The reply was, "Well, I have taken in Trewellard, Pendeen, and Botallack."
With Cornish people—no doubt it is the same countrywide, especially in Scotland and Wales—there is always a self-mocking irony and a dry sense of humour. But there is also an intense stoicism, which is often needed to survive the problems of living in an austere environment and poor economy.
My first impression on coming to the House was that it seemed so far removed from the real world of west Cornwall. I have come here to represent that area, not to


be drafted in to represent the chosen party in Cornwall. That is an important point that needs to be taken on board. It is what I am determined to do.
Cornwall, like Scotland and Wales, has accepted second best for far too long. The passion and fire of Michael Joseph in the past needs to be rekindled today for the future. There is a fire for a new beginning; there will be new hope. We need a new start and we are making new demands.
During the campaign and the march to London, demands will be made: for recognition of Cornwall's special cultural, historic, linguistic and constitutional status; the case for a Cornish Assembly; the overwhelming case for a powerful Cornish development agency; the desperate need to establish a university college in Cornwall; and the case for a fair deal for Cornish residents on water bills, housing, economic development aid, policing and education.
While Scotland has the West Lothian question, which is constantly answered in various ways, Cornwall has the Trelawny question:
And shall Trelawny live or shall Trelawny die,
There's 20,000 Cornish folk who'll know the reason why.
I believe that we will ensure that Trelawny will not die. That is what our party believes. I shall be working to persuade hon. Members that Trelawny must not die in the months and years ahead. Cheers.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I stand amazed and delighted at the eloquence of those hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches today. I recall how frozen I was when I made mine. Today there has been a promise of even greater to come.
I also stand amazed at the reactionary speech of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who seemed to be ready to fight against any reform until it becomes a tradition. I remind him that his paean of praise for the constitution is ill placed because the genius of our constitution is that it is not static, but evolves in accordance with the wishes of the people at the time. There has been a bar on constitutional advance for 18 years. That is why there is a need to get on speedily with constitutional change.
I was delighted by the speech of the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones). He warned me in advance that there would be a change of rhetoric. I am pleased that Plaid Cymru has recognised that this is a chance in a generation. The giant step is to have an Assembly. Once it is there, it will move as far and as fast as the people of Wales want. That is the key step. It is why the forces of progress will be on one side in the referendum, working together, while the Conservative forces—who have been chased from Wales—will be on the other side. That will be the real decision.
I believe that I am the only remaining member of the gang of six Welsh Labour Members who argued against the Labour Government's devolution proposals in the 1970s. I shall support the present Government's proposals; I shall support them in the referendum and do what I can to persuade people to accept them. I shall not go into the reasons for my change—[Interruption.] I shall

give the headlines. Part of the reason is Thatcherite centralisation; part of the reason involves Europe; part of the reason involves my wish to have the identities of Wales and Scotland recognised. I can expand on those reasons, but not tonight.
I am in favour of devolution. I am wary of referendums in principle, because they have a rather dubious history. Mitterrand said that the French always answer the wrong question, which is certainly true. The relevance of that is that, in 1979, the referendum in Wales was lost, partly because the Government who proposed it were unpopular at the time; we are now in a different context. The outcome of a referendum depends, in part, on who poses the question and the nature of the question. I concede that we are now in a honeymoon period and the situation is set fairer than before.
Another of my objections to referendums is that they are, by their very nature, inflexible. One cannot negotiate with the people—as the Danes found out when they had to put the question on Maastricht twice when they did not like the answer to the first question. Having said that, I believe that we must have a referendum on the Government's proposals now, for two reasons.
First, the precedent was set in 1979 and it would be absurd for us to overturn that decisive position. Secondly, in my judgment, although the people cannot pronounce on every detail of a Bill, they can express a mood. I believe that the current mood in Wales and, I am informed, in Scotland, is decisively in favour of change. A referendum will assist in the legislative process because, if hon. Members try to wreck the Bill, they can be reminded that it has been broadly endorsed by the people, which should clear any doubt.
I end, partly because I promised that I would end soon, with just two caveats—this Labour Member, like a Labour Government, keeps promises. First, from my own knowledge of Wales, I know that the outcome of the referendum in Wales is by no means a foregone conclusion. I shall certainly do what I can on the platform to ensure that there is a positive vote. Secondly, I concede that there are enormous problems of principle in having decentralisation—devolution—in a unitary state. We are travelling uncharted waters and many areas of principle should be rigorously tested.
Let no one imagine that this is a final station; it is no more than an interim solution. It may be that, rationally, we shall be persuaded to go further along a federal path—that is a debate for another day. For this day. this argument is enough. If people want to adopt the proposal, let us debate it rigorously and properly. I shall stand with the Government on the platform for the referendum and for devolution.

Mr. William Hague: We have had an interesting debate over the past day and a half. What a good job that there were a few minutes for the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) to make his speech, and to say that it would be good if the principles were properly tested in debate and that, if people had an opportunity to think about these matters rationally, they might do something different. His words revealed something important about the Bill—something on which I intend to concentrate in the minutes available to me.
The debate has been graced by a number of maiden speeches, including those from the hon. Members for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith),


for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) and for St. Ives (Mr. George), who had an endearing way of saying cheers at the end of his speech. I am not sure whether that will become a tradition in the House.
The hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) also made her maiden speech. Many Conservative Members will appreciate the tribute that she paid to the courtesy, humour and dignity of Michael Forsyth, her predecessor. Her speech and that of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Ms McKenna) yesterday explain why we meet so many traumatised cabbies in London at the moment: confrontations between Scottish Members of Parliament and the taxi drivers of London are turning into something to be believed.
The Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), said during business questions today that not too much time need be spent on the Bill, because it was simple and straightforward. It is a simple Bill in terms of the amount of paper that it occupies, but it is not simple or straightforward in its implications.
In a memorable speech yesterday, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said that awkward, difficult questions had to be faced. The difficulty for the House is that awkward and difficult questions have been asked in the debate, but they have not been answered by the Government. The Secretary of State for Wales will have an opportunity in a moment to answer those questions.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow asked important questions. He asked what he now calls the Bury, North question, about how Scottish Members can continue to be elected by 55,000 voters, but English Members by 68,000 voters. He recognises that the Bill has implications for England—something that the Government seem to want to deny. It is not possible, and it is not wise, to ignore completely the implications for England and the United Kingdom of the measures that the Government are now proposing.
The hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), the new Under-Secretary of State for Wales, opened our proceedings today—

Mr. Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hague: No, I shall not give way, as I wish to go a little further—I am still on my opening remarks, and congratulating the hon. Member for Neath on his maiden speech from the Front Bench.
The hon. Gentleman made an interesting speech, in which he seemed to say that, whatever people's views on the sort of Assembly or Parliament that should be set up, they could vote yes in the referendums planned by the Government. He seemed to say to the electorate, "Here are the proposals that we want you to approve," while at the same time giving a nod and a wink to everyone that the whole thing could be changed afterwards if they wanted to do so.
People will want to ask why the Government do not have the courage to say, "Here are our proposals, which have been tested by detailed scrutiny and debate—now you can accept or reject them as you wish." I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his speech, but he will understand why I thought it a bit rich for him to say in one breath that the referendum would be a loyalty vote for members of the Labour party, and in the next breath to say, "We've had enough of one-party diktat in Wales."

The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) asked whether it would be a loyalty test for Labour Members, or whether they would be allowed to speak out against the damaging and far-reaching proposals. There has not yet been a clear answer from the Government Front Bench to that question. I hope that we will get a clear answer from the Secretary of State in a few moments.
Conservatives agree that there should be referendums on the proposals in Scotland and Wales, but we do not share the extraordinary position of the Liberal party: that there should be a referendum in Wales, but not in Scotland. As the Secretary of State for Scotland said yesterday, the Liberals' reasoned amendment is something of a collectors' item, in that it implies that referendums are not necessary when the result can be predicted by members of the Liberal party and other people.
It would save a great deal of time in the democratic process in this country if we did not have to bother to have a vote whenever we thought that we could predict the outcome with a fair degree of certainty. We cannot proceed on that basis, and the Liberals may regret thinking that they can predict the outcome.

Mr. Salmond: Last Wednesday, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) called for a 50 per cent. rule. Last Friday, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) called for a threshold in the referendums. Last night, the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), told us to wait and see the amendments on Report. What is the policy tonight, and will that same policy apply to any European referendum?

Mr. Hague: The policy is as explained by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). We think that there should be a debate in the House about thresholds. We shall provide an opportunity for such a debate, and no doubt the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) will wish to participate.
The central contention of the Opposition tonight is that referendums should be held, but that they should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to judge. They should be held when people can view all the pros and cons. They should be held when the arguments in favour and against have indeed been rigorously tested, as the hon. Member for Swansea, East would like. Referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. They should be held after legislation has been debated—and debated by all Members of Parliament, on the Floor of the House of Commons.
Referendums are justifiable. They are a legitimate part of democratic decisions; but for them to be fair and compatible with the parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible, to know exactly what they are voting for, and for a referendum to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it. I should have thought that those principles would command wide agreement across the House—that the electors should be as well informed as possible, that they should know exactly what they are voting for, and that the referendum should be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process.
How does the Bill measure up against those principles? Is the Bill saying that referendums should be held when the electors are as well informed as possible? Would the electors be best informed before or after the publication of the legislation? Would they be best informed before or after debate has taken place in this House? Would they be best informed before or after the Government had to demonstrate that they had a workable scheme? As the hon. Member for Linlithgow said yesterday,
the devil is…in the details."—[Official Report, 21 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 806.]
The Government are not able to answer questions about the detail. They are not able to say what the role of the civil service would be, and for whom it would work. They are not able to say to whom the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales would be accountable. They are not able to say what is the chain of accountability for the expenditure of public money, and where the Public Accounts Committee stands. They are not able to say what the future arrangements for the block grant would be.
The Government are not able to say what the consequences of establishing a Welsh Assembly would be for our constitutional settlement, or what the costs of establishing a Welsh Assembly would be—except, that is, for the preliminary costs, which run into millions of pounds and which the Secretary of State for Scotland has described as small change.
The Government are not able to say what the costs would be of running a Welsh Assembly; what the remuneration of members of the Assembly would be; what the resources at the disposal of members of the Assembly would be; what the number of staff required to run the Assembly would be; by what mechanism it would be funded; what the effect would be on the Welsh block grant; what the effect should be on the representation of Wales in the House of Commons; how the Welsh Assembly would relate to the European Union; how it would relate to the European Committee of the Regions; whether it would have the power to call for persons and papers; how it would relate to local government in Wales; how it would relate to non-departmental public bodies; what its consequences would be for the Welsh Grand Committee; what its consequences would be for the Secretary of State for Wales; what its consequences would be for attracting inward investment; or what its consequences would be for the Welsh economy. The Government are not able to say how the electoral arrangements for the Welsh Assembly would be changed—whether the Assembly would be able to change them itself, or whether this House would change them.
How can referendums be properly conducted without the Government being able to answer these questions? The Secretary of State for Scotland said yesterday that the referendum should be held on some general principle and the voters would be able to give their verdict before Parliament plunges into the complexity. What a reassuring message—to say to the voters that they should come to a view and then we will plunge into the complexity, in which anything can be changed and in which the Government cannot be certain that they would not want to change their plans.

Mr. Morgan: When, in a previous intervention, the right hon. Gentleman was asked whether he was in favour

of a particular threshold, he nailed his colours firmly to the fence. After all the questions he has asked, will he answer the question whether he, in his present set of two portfolios with no hon. Members behind him and as a prospective leader of the Conservative party, is saying that he is against the principle of democratic devolution for Wales and Scotland?

Mr. Hague: Of course we are against devolution for Wales and Scotland—that is what we fought the general election on, that is what we will say in the referendums—[Interruption.] The Government do not have a mandate for devolution; they have a mandate to hold referendums on devolution, and the hon. Gentleman must remember that.
The hon. Member must also remember that he sits on the Government Benches now; we on the Opposition Benches ask the questions, and we need the answers from the Government. The Government do not even know the answers to some of the questions I have asked, let alone whether they have found the right answers, whether the House would leave them unaltered, or whether they themselves would change their minds. These are the difficulties into which the Government are going to plunge the nation.
What plans do the Government have for the conduct of the referendums? The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) asked about that matter. What plans are there for equal broadcasting time? Even if the Government do have such plans—and they have given precious few signs that they have—on what basis can a referendum be held when the Government and Parliament have yet to take a view on so many of these subjects? What hope have we of receiving answers to some of these questions? The Labour party has had years to think about the answers—what hope have we that they will materialise in the next few weeks?
The Government do not have answers to many of these questions. They pretend that the questions are trivia and tell us not to worry, because the detail will all be dealt with afterwards—but it is when one goes into the detail that one realises what unworkable nonsense it is. That is what happened in 1979.
If the Government are agreed that the voters should be as well informed as possible, why is the referendum not to be delayed until after the subject has been debated by Parliament? What are the Government afraid of? Why do they not want to hear the arguments, and why do they not want the country to hear the arguments, about how precisely the scheme would work?
The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, winding up the debate last night, said that he wanted the maximum debate in Scotland, but it will not be the maximum debate. Maximum debate would take place once the Bill had been properly considered in the House of Commons.
Can the Government not see the danger in proceeding with referendums without being able to answer not only the detailed questions, but the fundamental questions, about their plans? Sooner or later, they would be forced to confront the inevitable consequences of their policy, to try to resolve the unsustainable position whereby Scottish Members of Parliament would be able to vote on English matters, but neither Scottish nor English Members of


Parliament would be able to vote on Scottish matters. Sooner or later, the Government would have to confront those questions.
Several months ago, before he changed his policy, the Secretary of State for Wales said that the trouble with a pre-legislation referendum is that there are so many questions that one cannot answer. He never made a more prescient or perceptive remark—perhaps he has never made any other prescient or perceptive remark—and the trouble with his current proposal for a pre-legislation referendum is that there are so many questions that he cannot answer.
One of the other criteria that I set out is that a referendum should be an addition to the parliamentary process, not a substitute for it. With their plan, the Government are trying to have the best of both worlds from their point of view: a referendum in which detailed scrutiny will be impossible, because a referendum is not a vehicle for detailed scrutiny, and the information will not be available to the voters.
If, as they hope, they secure a yes vote, they will say that no one can object later to what was in the White Paper at the time of the referendum. They take the attitude of the Prime Minister, who said two weeks ago that the voters would then expect Labour to legislate and not play games in this House—a chilling phrase to those who believe in parliamentary democracy in this country.
The Government will thereby justify taking a Bill of the most fundamental constitutional importance upstairs in Committee, which would be the best of both worlds as the Government see it, but the worst of both worlds for the operation of parliamentary democracy. There would be a referendum without adequate detail or certainty and a parliamentary debate in which, the Government hope, objections would be overridden. It would be a dangerous precedent. It shows dangerous arrogance, and it will lead to bad law.
It is one thing to use a referendum to give added legitimacy and final approval to a major change fully debated by Parliament, and quite another to use it to distort the parliamentary process and to bully those who object to it. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe said yesterday, it is more like the continental-style use of referendums, which we in this country have often deplored. We know that the Prime Minister likes to think that he is Lady Thatcher; now he seems to think that he is Napoleon as well.
The referendum should be held when people have had the chance to see the detail, and to find out whether the detail works. Debates that precede that referendum should take place on the Floor of the House of Commons—a convention of this place since Lord Attlee was our Prime Minister.
Yesterday, Ministers said that the Bill would certainly be considered in a Committee of the whole House. Why is it that the Bill will certainly be considered in a Committee of the whole House, but the even more far-reaching and fundamental legislation that Ministers hope will follow it will not be considered in a Committee of the whole House?
We say that it is right that referendums should be held on these fundamental, far-reaching and deeply damaging proposals. We say that it is wrong that they should be held at this time and that it is wrong that they should be held in this way. The purpose of holding them at this

time and in this way is not to allow people to decide after the fullest debate. It is not to gain assent to specific proposals—otherwise, the questions involved would not be so general.
The purpose is to win approval for the Government's plans before the intractable and unanswerable deficiencies of the scheme are fully apparent, and then to quote that approval to force through Parliament, in Committees upstairs, a mass of constitutional legislation. That is an abuse of the concept of a referendum. It is the use of a referendum as an anti-parliamentary device. It is the unmistakable sign, seen throughout history, of an over-mighty and arrogant Executive.
Our amendment calls for referendums to be held after the legislation has been debated, amended and agreed, after full scrutiny on the Floor of the House. That is the right way to conduct a referendum, and that is what we shall vote for tonight.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): We are placing before the House what seems to me a wholly unexceptionable proposition: that we should ask the people to decide. Why on earth does the Secretary of State—

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Shadow Secretary of State.

Mr. Davies: Why does the shadow Secretary of State take great exception to that proposition?
I shall be brief; time is limited. I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not reply individually to all hon. Members who have spoken, but I shall refer specifically to the questions that have been asked. I want to mention the maiden speeches that were made, but I do not propose to encourage interventions because of shortage of time.
Yesterday, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) made his maiden speech. He shows obvious commitment to his constituency, and has already made his mark there. He paid special tribute to his predecessor, Alex Carlile, who was a liked and respected Member. He was a genuine Liberal, even when the causes that he advocated were unpopular, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be a suitable replacement for him.
I welcome the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith). He made a confident speech and paid a fitting tribute to George Kynoch, his predecessor. He obviously is a fitting replacement for a Minister who was forthright, if not combative, in the House. He spoke of his traditional Liberal concerns. His support for devolution in Scotland and Wales is much appreciated.
I extend a special welcome to my friend, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan). She spoke strongly of the need for fair representation for women in the House and in the Assembly. She will be a fine representative of our capital city of Cardiff. She paid a generous tribute to Gwilym Jones, a former Welsh Office Minister. She will be a strong and principled Member of Parliament, who will fight hard for her constituency, for Wales and for the cause of women.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) paid a generous tribute to her predecessor, Michael Forsyth. He was obviously a very effective politician, but her entertaining and sincere speech shows that she is a more than fitting successor.
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) made the final maiden speech in the debate. He comes from a strong radical tradition, and took great pride in declaring that Cornwall is now joining Scotland and Wales as a Tory-free zone. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."' He spoke warmly of David Harris, a Member who was well known and very well respected on both sides of the House. I know that all Members who knew David Harris will want to express their sympathy for the very difficult personal circumstances in which he has found himself. I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives, and look forward to his regular contributions to our debates.
The Bill before us is in one sense a limited measure, simply providing for referendums to be held, in Wales and Scotland, on the Government's proposals for devolution. However, it represents the first step in a major programme of constitutional reform to which the Government are committed and which was clearly set out in our manifesto. Let there be no doubt: that programme, and so the Bill, are central to our project of renewing and modernising Britain.
Several specific points were raised in the debate yesterday and today; I shall discuss those later. First, I shall say a few words about the policy that lies behind the Bill. The shadow Secretary of State for Wales, the former Secretary of State, made the startling admission that he was opposed to devolution. Well, we already have devolved government in the United Kingdom. Substantial powers are devolved to the Secretaries of State for Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland. What we do not have is direct democratic control, or even effective oversight, of those devolved powers.
The purpose of devolution of power is surely to allow diversity to flourish; to allow policies to be implemented that reflect local circumstances, traditions and needs. Among the many faults of the Conservative party is its steadfast refusal to recognise the diversity of life in the United Kingdom.
The Conservative party has deluded itself that there are single, simple answers to the problems that confront us. There has been a delusion that Government in Westminster has all the answers. That belief has at times been almost an obsession. It is an obsession to impose uniformity from the centre, regardless of local circumstances or interests. In too many cases, policy has been a "one size fits all" policy. The Conservative party still has not realised how much resentment there is in Wales at the imposition of divisive and disruptive policies such as grant-maintained schools and nursery vouchers.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: No; I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for

Wales asked the Secretary of State 15 questions. Would it be in order for the Secretary of State to answer one of them?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): That is not a point of order. The Secretary of State is in order. He must be in order, because I am allowing him to speak.

Mr. Davies: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If we have less useless time wasting, I shall have more time to answer those questions.
The policies of grant-maintained schools and nursery vouchers were designed to meet ideological party needs in London, not practical educational needs in Wales. On a range of domestic policy—but especially on education, health, the environment and economic development—Conservative ideology and party interests have prevailed over Welsh interests and Welsh values. I know that my Scottish colleagues feel strongly about the subordination of Scottish interests and values to Conservative dogma.
Last night, the shadow Secretary of State for Wales admitted that the Conservative party had
lost the faith, the confidence and the good will of the electorate.
I suppose that that is a small step in the right direction but, given the events of 1 May, it is not a startling proposition. He went on to say that his party was
tainted with sleaze, greed, self-indulgence and division.
The former Secretary of State for Wales should know. If ever there was sleaze, greed and self-indulgence—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must not have these interruptions.

Mr. Davies: If ever there was sleaze, greed and self-indulgence, it was the way in which the right hon. Gentleman created and used the quango state in Wales to suit his own party interest. I welcome his repentance, but I would urge him to move quickly, because the road to this particular Damascus is getting very crowded.
Many in his own party now embrace the case for devolution. The Tory grandees are leading the charge—Sir Wyn Roberts, Viscount St. Davids, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, Tristan Garel-Jones and the former leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath).

Mr. Hague: In the hope that the Secretary of State will in the time available answer at least one of the questions asked, I wish to ask him whether members of the Labour party, such as the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), will be free to campaign against devolution in the referendum if they wish to do so.

Mr. Davies: My right hon. Friend does not need the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman to ask questions. He is capable of putting his own questions, and I am capable of answering them—but I will do so in my own time.
The list goes on—Glyn Davies, the defeated candidate in Montgomery; David Evans, the defeated candidate in Newport, East; Gareth Jenkins, a former candidate in Newport, East. They recognise that democracies must be flexible, dynamic and evolutionary.
We are not going to find simple uniform answers to the many challenges we face, and the Opposition will be foolish if they do not learn the lessons of 18 years of failure in government. Increasingly, government needs to establish a framework which will encourage and facilitate local initiative to empower local people to work out the solutions that suit them best. The Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament will enable the people of those countries to make their own decisions on their own priorities and on the matters that directly affect them in their own day-to-day lives.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Davies: No. The hon. Gentleman has not been here for the debate, and I want to reply to some of the questions that have been asked.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) asked whether the long title of the Bill would allow for amendment. No decision has been taken on that, but I can assure him that there will be full opportunity to debate the White Paper when it is published. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make representations on that White Paper, we will listen to them carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) asked certain questions. It is right that people are concerned about jobs, education and the health service, and our proposals for a better democracy will help us to bring better government to deliver better public services. He asked about the pre-legislative referendum, and expressed his own reservations. But the principles on which we will invite the people of Wales to vote will be made clear in the White Paper.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East asked about the David and Goliath scenario, whereby advantages will be given to those campaigning on either side of the argument. Let me make it clear that the Government will set out our proposals, and we will inform the public. It will then be for the political parties to decide how to campaign, and we are not proposing to provide any state aid to any party to campaign either for or against our proposals.
I wish to refer to the timing of the referendum. In Scotland, some 90 per cent. of daily newspapers are generated within Scotland. In Wales, the figure is less than 10 per cent. In Scotland, more than 90 per cent. of public broadcasting is generated in Scotland. In Wales, the figure is less than 60 per cent. Our proposals for Scotland differ from those for Wales, and it seems to me wholly unexceptional for us to argue that there should be separate debates to allow the separate forms of devolution to be debated separately in Scotland and Wales, or that the people of Wales should be invited to vote at the appropriate time on the proposals we have for Wales.
Freedom of speech is a matter that is exciting the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks—although what it has to do with him, I do not know. No one would attempt to deny my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West—who has been a Member of this House for a long time—or any other hon. Member freedom of speech. The Government have a policy and the Labour party has a policy, and, obviously, we expect people to support that policy. If my right hon. Friend has difficulties with that, he will have to discuss them with my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip, and reflect and discuss with his colleagues.

The Labour party wishes to create an inclusive and tolerant Assembly. We will campaign as a party vigorously and wholeheartedly, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will lead that campaign. I and my Front-Bench colleagues will campaign as vigorously as we can with all the resources available to us. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West will reflect on the wisdom of setting out on a course of action that would bring him into conflict with his party and the Government.
While the case for change is essentially a democratic one, our proposals are not only about democracy. By allowing people to have a greater say in fashioning their own lives, asserting their own values and determining their own priorities, we will be able to achieve greater economic prosperity and, by improving our public services, improve our quality of life.
Let me turn briefly to some of the other points made in the debate. First, it was suggested that we should not hold these referendums at all. I reject that. We are asking the people of Wales and the people of Scotland whether we should proceed with the process of democratisation which we clearly signalled in our manifesto, on which 34 out of 40 Members of Parliament were elected in Wales and 56 out of 72 in Scotland. Forty out of 40 Members representing Wales in this House were elected on the basis that the status quo is not an option.
I welcome the Liberal Democrats' support for our constitutional reform policies set out in the report of the joint committee between our two parties. I know that Plaid Cymru would prefer a different option—what it has come to call a "preferendum", with a number of options put before the people. The hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) made a strong case for his party this evening, but the Government do not agree.
The use of referendums is relatively novel, and is part of the new, more inclusive politics which began on 1 May. But there is no precedent in the UK, and little logic, for having complex multiple-choice options. The most likely outcome of such a procedure in Wales would be no overall majority view—and no endorsement, therefore, of the Government's policy.
That is why the Government propose to put a clear choice before the people. The people should, and will, be given that clear choice. We seek endorsement of our new vision of an inclusive democracy, and we shall spell out the full details of our proposals in our White Paper.
The question of thresholds was raised in the debate and it was suggested that the threshold should be 40 or 50 per cent., as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has suggested. We know what that means—the creation of artificial rules, which count non-voters, absent voters or even dead voters as all voting against the proposals. Let me be clear: we shall conduct the referendums on the basis of normal democratic principles, without the construction of fancy franchises, and we shall seek majority support among those who cast their votes.
The shadow Secretary of State for Wales represents now, and represented when he was Secretary of State, all that was wrong with Conservative government. He was unaccountable to the people. Time after time, he appointed failed Tories to run the quango state in Wales. Month after month, he twisted and conspired to pack Welsh questions with his Tory cronies. His priorities


reflected his party needs, not the values and aspirations of Wales. He gave us unaccountable government, and the unaccountable Government gave us bad government.
Our proposals offer a better way: the prospect of open, democratic and accountable government. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 406.

Division No. 5]
[6.59 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Gray, James


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Green, Damian


Arbuthnot, James
Greenway, John


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Grieve, Dominic


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Baldry, Tony
Hague, Rt Hon William


Bercow, John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hammond, Philip


Blunt, Crispin
Hayes, John


Body, Sir Richard
Heald, Oliver


Boswell, Tim
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward (Old Bexley & Sidcup)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Brady, Graham
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Brazier, Julian
Horam, John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Browning, Mrs Angela
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hunter, Andrew


Burns, Simon
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Butterfill, John
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Cash, William
Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Chope, Christopher
Key, Robert


Clappison, James
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lansley, Andrew



Leigh, Edward


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Letwin, Oliver


Collins, Tim
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Colvin, Michael
Lidington, David


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Cran, James
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Curry, Rt Hon David
Loughton, Tim


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Luff, Peter


Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Day, Stephen
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
MacKay, Andrew


Duncan, Alan
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Duncan Smith, lain
McLoughlin, Patrick


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Madel, Sir David


Evans, Nigel
Major, Rt Hon John


Faber, David
Malins, Humfrey


Fallon, Michael
Maples, John


Flight, Howard
Mates, Michael


Forth, Eric
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Fox, Dr Liam
May, Mrs Theresa


Fraser, Christopher
Merchant, Piers


Gale, Roger
Moss, Malcolm


Garnier, Edward
Norman, Archie


Gibb, Nick
Page, Richard


Gill, Christopher
Paice, James


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Paterson, Owen


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Pickles, Eric


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Prior, David





Redwood, Rt Hon John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Robathan, Andrew
Townend, John


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Tredinnick, David


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Trend, Michael


Ruffley, David
Tyrie, Andrew


St Aubyn, Nick
Viggers, Peter


Sayeed, Jonathan
Walter, Robert


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Wardle, Charles


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Waterson, Nigel


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Wells, Bowen


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Soames, Nicholas
Whittingdale, John


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Spicer, Sir Michael
Wilkinson, John


Spring, Richard
Willetts, David


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wilshire, David


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Streeter, Gary
Woodward, Shaun


Swayne, Desmond
Yeo, Tim


Syms, Robert
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Tapsell, Sir Peter



Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mr. Richard Ottaway and


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Mr. Peter Ainsworth.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ainger, Nick
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Allan, Richard (Shefld Hallam)
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)
Cann, Jamie


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Caplin, Ivor


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Casale, Roger


Atherton, Ms Candy
Caton, Martin


Atkins, Ms Charlotte
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Austin, John
Chaytor, David


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Chidgey, David


Banks, Tony
Chisholm, Malcolm


Barnes, Harry
Church, Ms Judith


Barton, Kevin
Clapham, Michael


Battle, John
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Bayley, Hugh



Beard, Nigel
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clelland, David


Bennett, Andrew F
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Benton, Joe
Coaker, Vernon


Bermingham, Gerald
Coffey, Ms Ann


Berry, Roger
Cohen, Harry


Best, Harold
Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith & Fulham)


Betts, Clive



Blackman, Mrs Liz
Colman, Anthony (Putney)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Connarty, Michael


Blizzard, Robert
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Boateng, Paul
Cooper, Ms Yvette


Borrow, David
Corbett, Robin


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bradshaw, Ben
Corston, Ms Jean


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Cousins, Jim


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Cox, Tom


Cranston, Ross


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E & Wallsend)
Crausby, David



Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Cummings, John


Buck, Ms Karen
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Burden, Richard
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Burgon, Colin
Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)


Burstow, Paul



Butler, Christine
Dafis, Cynog


Byers, Stephen
Dalyell, Tarn


Caborn, Richard
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair






Darvill, Keith
Hill, Keith


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Hinchliffe, David


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hoey, Kate


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Home Robertson, John


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Hope, Philip


Dawson, Hilton
Hopkins, Kelvin


Dean, Ms Janet
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Denham, John
Howells, Dr Kim


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Hoyle, Lindsay


Dismore, Andrew
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford& Unvston)


Dobbin, Jim



Donohoe, Brian H
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Dowd, Jim
Humble, Mrs Joan


Drew, David
Hurst, Alan


Drown, Ms Julia
Hutton, John


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Iddon, Brian


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Illsley, Eric


Eagle, Ms Maria (L 'pool Garston)
Ingram, Adam


Edwards, Huw
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)


Efford, Clive
Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough,


Ellman, Ms Louise
Jamieson, David


Ennis, Jeff
Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)


Etherington, Bill
Johnson, Ms Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret



Fatchett, Derek
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Fearn, Ronnie
Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Fisher, Mark
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Jones, Ms Jenny


Fitzsimons, Ms Loma (Wolverh'ton SW)



Flint, Ms Caroline
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Flynn, Paul
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Follett, Ms Barbara
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Foster, Michael John (Worcester)
Keen, Alan (Feltham)


Fyfe, Maria
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Galbraith, Sam
Kemp, Fraser


Galloway, George
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Gapes, Mike



Gardiner, Barry
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Khabra, Piara S


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Kidney, David


Gerrard, Neil
King, Andy (Rugby)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Kingham, Tessa


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Godman, Dr Norman A
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Godsitf, Roger
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Goggins, Paul
Laxton, Bob


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Lepper, David


Gorrie, Donald
Leslie, Christopher


Graham, Thomas
Levitt, Tom


Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Grocott, Bruce
Linton, Martin


Grogan, John
Livsey, Richard


Gunnell, John
Uwyd, Elfyn


Hain, Peter
Lock, David


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Love, Andy


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McAllion, John


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McAvoy, Thomas


Hanson, David
McCabe, Stephen


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Harvey, Nick
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
McDonagh, Ms Siobhain


Healey, John
Macdonald, Calum


Heath, David (Somerton)
McDonnell, John


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
McFall, John


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hepburn, Stephen
McIsaac, Ms Shona


Heppell, John
McKenna, Ms Rosemary


Hesford, Stephen
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
McLeish, Henry





McMaster, Gordon
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McNamara, Kevin
Rowlands, Ted


McNulty, Tony
Roy, Frank


MacShane, Denis
Ruane, Chris


Mactaggart, Fiona
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McWalter, Tony
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McWilliam, John
Ryan, Ms Joan


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Salmond, Alex


Mallaber, Ms Judy
Salter, Martin


Mandelson, Peter
Savidge, Malcolm


Marek, Dr John
Sawford, Phil


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Shaw, Jonathan


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Shipley, Ms Debra


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Short, Rt Hon clare


Martlew, Eric
Singh, Marsha


Maxton, John
Skinner, Dennis


Merron, Ms Gillian
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Michael Alun
Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)


 Milburn, Alan
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)


Mitchell, Austin
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Moore, Michael
Snape, Peter


Moran, Ms Margaret
Soley, Clive


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Spellar, John


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Steinberg, Gerry


Mountford, Ms Kali
Stevenson, George


Mudie, George
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mullin, Chris
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Murphy, Dennis (Wansbeck)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Stott, Roger


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Norris, Dan
Stringer, Graham


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)


O'Hara, Edward
Stunell, Andrew


Olner, Bill
Sutcliffe, Gerry


O'Neill, Martin
Swinney, John


Opik, Lembit
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Organ, Mrs Diana



Osborne, Mrs Sandra
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pearson, Ian
Taylor, Matthew (Truro & St Austell)


Pendry, Tom



Pickthall, Colin
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pike, Peter L
Thomas Gareth R (Harrow W)


Plaskitt, James
Timms, Stephen


Pond, Chris
Tipping, Paddy


Pope, Greg
Todd, Mark


Pound, Stephen
Touhig, Don


Powell, Sir Raymond
Trickett, Jon


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Truswell, Paul


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Turner Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Primarolo, Dawn
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Prosser, Gwyn
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Purchase, Ken
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Quinn, Lawrie
Tyler, Paul


Radice, Giles
Vaz, Keith


Rammell, Bill
Vis, Dr Rudi


Rapson, Syd
Walley, Ms Joan


Raynsford, Nick
Ward, Ms Claire


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Wareing, Robert N


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Watts, David


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Welsh, Andrew



White, Brian


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Whitehead, Alan


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wicks, Malcolm


Rooker, Jeff



Rooney, Terry







Wigley, Dafydd
Wood, Mike


Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Woolas, Phil


(Swansea W)
Worthington, Tony


Williams, Dr Alan W (E Carnarthen)
Wray, James



Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)


Willis, Phil
Wyatt, Derek


Wills, Michael



Wilson, Brian
Tellers for the Noes:


Winnick, David
Ms Bridget Prentice and


Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Janet Anderson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills), That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. Ron Davies].

Question agreed to.

Committee upon Monday 2 June.

Orders of the Day — REFERENDUMS (SCOTLAND AND WALES) BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
(1) the charging on and payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any expenditure which is to be charged on and paid out of that Fund by virtue of any enactment applied by an Order in Council under the Act; and
(2) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure of the Secretary of State—
(a) in connection with a referendum held by virtue of the Act, or
(b) in preparation for the establishment of a Scottish Parliament or a Welsh Assembly.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Procedure (Modernisation)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Clelland.]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank you for calling me to open this debate during which we shall discuss some of the ideas that have been advanced for modernising the procedures of the House of Commons. I am pleased that the Government have been able to provide time for the debate during only the second full week of this Parliament. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must leave the Chamber quickly and quietly. There is a debate going on and the Leader of the House is at the Dispatch Box.

Mrs. Taylor: I hope that, by holding this debate so early in the Parliament, we have proved our serious intent in terms of facilitating improvements in the workings of Parliament.
After only two or three weeks in this place, many new Members are bewildered by some of the practices of the House and are keen to see some changes. I am glad to see so many hon. Members present for this debate, not least because there has been little interest when we have debated the workings of the House previously.
We have encountered some practical problems since Parliament resumed—including hon Members' complaints about the difficulty of fitting so many of them into one Division Lobby. I know that hon. Members are considering some imaginative solutions to that problem.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I have two specific ideas that my right hon. Friend and others might consider. First, the construction of a third desk in the Lobbies would allow the traffic to flow more quickly. Secondly, we could examine the two-minute break between the announcement of the Division and the tellers going to the Doors. Those two proposals could conceivably save three or four minutes.

Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his constructive suggestion. I hope that there will be many more such suggestions not just this evening, but during the sittings of the proposed Select Committee on modernisation. I note that my hon. Friend did not suggest introducing electronic voting or anything like that; that may be because he has been in this place long enough to know the value of Divisions, when hon. Members have a chance to meet their colleagues and—whether they are the newest or the most experienced Back Benchers—to lobby Ministers. I hope that many ideas will be forthcoming in that area.
This evening I shall discuss some of the issues that I believe the new Committee should address. As shadow Leader of the House, I made it clear that, although I think that Parliament can deal excellently with some issues and situations, it does not organise itself to do the best possible job in other areas.
The roles of Back Benchers and new Members of Parliament have changed over the years. When I first came to the House in the mid-1970s—I must admit that

it is a long time ago—Back Benchers could adopt two distinct roles. The first was to climb the ministerial ladder, starting as a parliamentary private secretary; the second, very legitimate and respected, role was to become a senior Back Bencher. That group dominated many debates and Question Times. It may be that, with many Back Benchers on one side of the House, more hon. Members will be interested in developing the role of the Back Bencher. I think that it is in the interests of the House to recreate and re-evaluate that role. We should have regard to that point when considering possible changes.
The second big change that has occurred since the 1970s is a consequence of one party being in government for 18 years. I do not seek to make a partisan point, because it might have happened to any party that stayed in power for a long time. After a time, the Conservative Government believed that they could get away with anything, do anything and push any legislation through the House; while too many Opposition Members believed that they could not achieve anything.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: If that is the case, would it not be a good idea to introduce a freedom of information Act immediately? That would ensure that that situation does not arise again.

Mrs. Taylor: I ask my hon. Friend to be patient, as I shall return to that point later. As a very experienced senior Back Bencher, she will agree that there is a danger of Governments and Oppositions adopting rigid roles. For a time in the 1980s, the Labour party suffered from Oppositionitis and the Government suffered from—

Mr. Skinner: Arrogance.

Mrs. Taylor: —Governmentitis—or arrogance, as my hon. Friend neatly puts it. It may be time to reassess the role of both sides. When the Prime Minister told a meeting of the parliamentary Labour party that we are the servants now, he was reinforcing the need for Governments to re-examine their role and not act with the arrogance that, as my hon. Friend pointed out, was the hallmark of the recent past.

Mr. Eric Forth: While the right hon. Lady is on the theme of arrogance—and lest anyone misunderstand her comments—will she pursue that line in the context of her colleagues' recent actions when they displayed what many inside and outside the House regard as arrogance by making very important policy statements outside Parliament without consulting this place? That does not seem to be a very good background against which to develop the hon. Lady's argument.

Mrs. Taylor: I was hoping to have a constructive debate this evening. As a Minister in the previous Government—recalling his time as Education Minister, I believe that he was guilty occasionally—the hon. Gentleman should be cautious about his remarks. I think that all Ministers should treat the House with the respect that it deserves, as I said during business questions earlier today. Any change in Government policy should be reported to the House, but I do not think that statements should be made on the Floor of the House about every policy item-that certainly never happened when the hon. Gentleman's party was in government.


Whenever parliamentary change is discussed, everyone mentions the Jopling reforms and the changes that were introduced some time ago. I remind the House of two things. First, as I said at the time, Jopling dealt with only a narrow range of issues: the hours of Parliament and how they were arranged; and, to a certain and minor extent, the balance between Committee work and work on the Floor of the House.
Secondly, hon. Members should remember that, although Jopling reported relatively quickly, the House sat on the report for almost three years before implementing its recommendations. I hope that, when a new Committee is established and begins to report to the House—hopefully, there will be a succession of reports; I do not want it to deliberate for two years before offering some ideas—there will be change relatively quickly, and much agreement about moving on some of its recommendations.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: I welcome my right hon. Friend's remarks about moving quickly. As she will know, many of the new Labour Back Benchers are women. They and other new Members of Parliament must have an opportunity to contribute to parliamentary Committees while they are relatively new. We should listen to their experiences and take advantage now of their expertise and skills.

Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I share her concern that we should move quickly in setting up departmental Select Committees so that hon. Members have a chance to work in the way that they wish.

Sir Peter Emery: For accuracy, and only for that, it should be made clear that implementation of the report of the Jopling Committee, on which the right hon. Lady and I served, was held up for many moons by an hon. Member with a small majority who used to sit on the Opposition Front Bench as the deputy Chief Whip. He was against anything all the while on the Jopling report. It must be made clear that that was the delaying factor.

Mrs. Taylor: I think that there were several hon. Members on both sides of the House who were not happy with the proposed changes. In the end, however, those changes were implemented. I like to think that I played some small part in that process.
The fact that we on the Government Benches want to encourage the House to change should come as no surprise to anyone. It is made clear in the Labour party's manifesto that we, the Labour party, believe that the House is in need of modernisation and that we will ask the House to establish a Select Committee to review its procedures. I have said over a long time that I think that the House needs change.
The desire to improve the workings of Parliament is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Yes, there have been some—on both sides of the Chamber—who have resisted change, but the majority, certainly on the Labour Benches, and a good many who represent the minority parties and those who represent the official Opposition, want constructive change. There is a wish to take the opportunity that is now available to us.
I wish to signal priorities and the way in which the Committee might consider the issues that I think need attention. There are four themes to the changes that could perhaps be brought about. First, and, I think, the most important, is the production of better legislation. In that, we all have a responsibility. Ministers have a responsibility, and so does Parliament generally. After all, we are the legislature. I hope that the new Committee will give that area particular priority.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Would it not be better if much more legislation were routed through the Select Committees, so that Select Committees could take evidence from those interested in particular subjects? Should we not try to ensure that the result is legislation that is much better than that which we have seen in the past?

Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his constructive suggestion. I am coming precisely to his point. We all know that, far too often, legislation has to be amended because of practical difficulties and mistakes that could have been spotted and dealt with at the time of consideration. That is not, I think, the result of poor draftsmanship. Difficulties and mistakes often occur because of the political imperatives that stem from Governmentitis. It seems that Governments feel that they should never accept an amendment moved by an Opposition Member. All too often, there has been no scope for constructive criticism.

Mr. Forth: The House should not imagine that a previous Government were necessarily completely at fault for a failure properly to scrutinise legislation in Committee. Will the right hon. Lady accept that what happened in Standing Committees was largely under the control of the then Opposition, and that all too often time was wasted at the beginning of a Bill's consideration in Committee, with endless filibustering on the sittings motion, for example, with the result that the end of the time available for consideration came too soon in one sense, and some parts of the Bill received no consideration at all? We should consider that as well as the behaviour of the Government.

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman's remarks might carry some weight were it not for the fact that I have served on Standing Committees with him. I was a member of a Committee on which he was the Minister. The Government, late in the day, came up with nearly 1,000 amendments on that Bill. I do not think that we, the Government, can take lectures on the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Has my right hon. Friend studied the Committee proceedings on the personal pensions legislation in 1986 and the Child Support Agency legislation—enactments that did no credit to the House? The problems that ensued—they were enormous because 2 million people were cheated on personal pensions, and we all know of the tragedies and injustices that resulted from the Child Support Agency—arose from the fact that the two major parties were confrontational. They did not listen to each other and there was no rational scrutiny of the enabling Bills. That is the type of scrutiny that we must introduce into a new system of pre-legislative inquiries.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is anticipating the very points that I am about to make.
It is rather obvious that a Government have the right to initiate legislation for which they have a mandate or when problems arise. Much of that legislation will be controversial and it will be promoted or forced through robustly; however, there are areas of legislation where there might be differences of approach or of priorities across the party divide, but where at the same time there is agreement on an objective, or where there is agreement that a certain problem needs to be tackled. My hon. Friend's example about pensions was extremely useful in highlighting that point.
There is scope for considering to what extent we would gain by having more Bills published in draft and, possibly, by having pre-legislative Committees to examine draft Bills or White Papers or—it is not the method that I would prefer—using departmental Select Committees. The use of such Committees is still worthy of consideration. These are the very issues that the proposed Committee might consider.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I remind my right hon. Friend that a Special Standing Committee was set up three years ago, I think, to examine the Children (Scotland) Bill. The establishment of the Committee enabled us to cross-examine expert witnesses. It may be useful to reflect on the Standing Order—I think that it is Standing Order No. 91—that allows such a Committee to be created. That might be a useful way forward.

Mrs. Taylor: I agree. There were times during the previous Parliament when we, the then Opposition, suggested that very procedure. We were told, however, that it would not be acceptable. I think that we need to change our approach and to consider the approach that my hon. Friend has suggested in appropriate circumstances.
I am not saying that every Bill should receive consideration by pre-legislative Committees or a Special Standing Committee; that could cause unnecessary duplication and delay. We should, however, consider what is appropriate for each Bill, and Government and Parliament should be more willing to use the available options more freely. There should be more discussion about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) mentioned the Child Support Agency. There was agreement on both sides of the House that something should be done and that fathers had a responsibility towards their children. The Bill was subject to the usual procedures, and I understand why the then Government wanted to act quickly. At the end of the day, however, the Bill was flawed. It satisfied no one and angered many. We all received the case load that proved that.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I speak as a Chairman of Committees. I am always disturbed that Government Back-Bench Members, whichever party is in government, say virtually nothing. They have a contribution to make and Bills should be timetabled in such a way that Government as well as Opposition Back-Bench Members can make constructive contributions to debate.

Mrs. Taylor: There has to be a role for constructive contributions, and Back Benchers—and we have many of them—will be very dissatisfied if they are not allowed to make a constructive contribution.
Had we scrutinised the Child Support Agency Bill differently, some of that scrutiny might have led to delay. In those circumstances, there are already provisions for the use of a rollover mechanism, but at the moment that is considered to be dreadful and something that should never happen. If we take a more mature approach and allow extra time for better scrutiny, we must consider whether we should move in that direction.
The Government are willing to acknowledge that more could be done by way of publishing draft Bills. In fact, it is our intention to publish during this Session a record number of draft Bills—we will move on this as quickly as possible—on a range of subjects: a food standards agency, freedom of information and tobacco advertising. Although there might be disagreement about how we should tackle the problems of smoking, especially among young people, there is cross-party agreement that something should be done. Other subjects include financial services, limited liability partnerships and the control of communicable diseases. There are areas where we could, to good effect, publish draft Bills and then consider the role of Parliament in ensuring proper scrutiny.

Mr. Richard Burden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in addition to draft Bills, which can perform a useful function, the fact that the Government are looking at other consensus-building mechanisms on the big political issues of the day should be welcomed? I add my welcome—I hope that she will, too—to the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary just a couple of days ago that he wishes to make early progress on the establishment of a commission to examine the methods that are used to elect Members to this place. That is a consensus-building mechanism that can work and needs to be welcomed.

Mr. Skinner: Steady with that one.

Mrs. Taylor: I always take advice from my hon. Friend, and if he says steady, I shall be very careful about what I say.
We have all experienced problems—some of which my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) raised in an Adjournment debate yesterday morning—in elections. There are problems that we should look at on an all-party basis, and if we can arrive at solutions, so much the better.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Does the right hon. Lady agree that there is much truth in the aphorism that he who governs least governs best, and that one problem that we in this place have is that we all rush to the judgment that we know what is better for other people and then end up making very bad legislation and very complicated lives for the people whom we seek to govern? Will she bear that in mind in her haste to introduce all these new Bills?

Mrs. Taylor: I shall certainly bear in mind what the hon. Lady said. She spoke about the complexities of Bills. Let me add a personal note. Legislation should be as understandable as possible. Anyone who can find a way to present our legislation in plain English will certainly get a great deal of credit from me.
On the amount of legislation that is necessary, I am afraid that, on a partisan note, much needs to be done to redress some of the balance of the past few years.
I was asked about the proper programming of legislation. I hope that the new Committee will examine that. We need to consider what alternatives there might be to the guillotine imposed by the Government with a majority and the voluntary understandings that have been tried in the past. Sometimes they have worked, sometimes not, but there is scope to see what other mechanisms could be available to achieve better planning of legislation.
Another area that the Committee should consider is the balance of work on the Floor of the House and upstairs in Committee. That was touched on by Jopling, but only at the margins. I feel strongly that the work of Standing Committees never gets the attention or credit that it deserves. Select Committees get some recognition, but it is rare for Standing Committees or some of the Scrutiny Committees to get any attention whatever. Perhaps if the media feel that they have extra slots available because of the changes to Prime Minister's Questions they will turn their attention to Committee work, because those of us who have been here for any time know that much valuable work goes on in Committees. Many hon. Members work in Committees, but that work goes without recognition.
I also hope that the Committee will look at the other main role of Parliament—holding Ministers to account. The changes to Prime Minister's Questions will be beneficial, but I do not want to go into them this evening, not least because there is an Adjournment debate on that subject next week. However, yesterday, more questions were asked. There were more opportunities to follow up. There were more serious questions, from both sides of the House, and, indeed, more serious answers.
There is still scope for discussion on further changes: for example, considering the role of open or closed questions, or the period of notice for the tabling of questions. The Committee may wish to look at that. On departmental questions, there are other areas that could be considered: for example, whether there should be a facility to request the Speaker to allow a longer period for supplementaries on a question on a particularly important or topical issue.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the delicate matter of not wanting to tell the Speaker how to do her job, should we not air the question about the acceptability of private notice questions? There is most rigorous examination of any attempt to table a private notice question, yet it affords a serious, continuous follow-up on an important topical matter.

Mrs. Taylor: I agree that we need to consider all these matters, but private notice questions have to be used for serious matters only. We have to remember that, whenever we allow time for one issue, we are taking it away from something else. The balance has to be considered extremely carefully.
I hope that all hon. Members will agree that the Committee should consider improved ways of scrutinising delegated legislation, be it statutory instruments or European legislation, or other improvements. There is scope. I know that work has been done by other Committees. I hope that it can be looked at quickly.

Mr. Michael Jack: The right hon. Lady mentioned European legislation. Her party has shown a

zeal to agree to potentially controversial matters already. The current methods of scrutiny, with European Standing Committees A and B, leave much to be desired, because they scrutinise regulations or directives very late in their legislative passage in the House and in Europe. Will the Committee seriously consider involving the House in European legislation, particularly at the draft stage, at an earlier point?

Mr. Skinner: What a difference a defeat makes.

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Member for Fylde was part of a Government who did not change this area. I remind him that Committees in the previous Parliament came up with some recommendations, and some of us gave evidence to the effect that certain approaches should change in the future.
The Committee could look at the set-piece debates that we have: the Queen's Speech, the number of days that we spend on the Budget, the number on the armed forces and on the estimates. These may be right. We have seen some flexibility, but surely it is right for the Committee to consider whether we are making the best use of parliamentary time. I hope this will be an opportunity to take stock.

Ms Julia Drown: One of the things that struck me immediately as a new Member, is the number of empty Benches during many of our debates. I have continually to decide between dealing with the many pieces of correspondence from my constituents and wanting to be here on their behalf, listening to and taking part in the debate. I have been told that it is frowned upon to work quietly during the debate. I should be grateful if the Committee would look at that and clarify it for all hon. Members.

Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for opening up the next theme that the Committee should consider, which is how hon. Members can organise their working lives, on which there has been much comment, especially from new Members.
If our constituents see us speaking in or listening to a debate in the Chamber, they believe that we are working, but if we are not in the Chamber they tend to believe that we are not working. I have already said that we should re-evaluate, or have others re-evaluate, Committee work. I feel strongly about that.
There must also be some recognition of constituency work. Many of our constituents want us to be in two places at once. We cannot be, and we should not be, defensive about that, but we should design our parliamentary timetable with those dual roles in mind. We could do more in that regard. That is particularly important for non-London Members. Constituency Fridays have been a great success and we should see whether we can improve on them in the future.
I am glad that we can have a recess next week. Many new Members are concerned about the impact of the sittings of the House on their families. The Whitsun recess is the only one that ever coincides with the schools half-term, so I am particularly glad that we have been able to preserve that next week. That is another point that we can consider when it comes to the programme.

Mr. Michael Connarty: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Taylor: I can anticipate what my hon. Friend is about to say.

Mr. Connarty: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, particularly given her origins north of the border. The Whitsun recess does not coincide with the Scottish schools holiday, and nor does a large part of the summer recess. Most of the school summer holiday in Scotland is over before Scottish Members can return to their children.

Mrs. Taylor: The October half-term in Scotland sometimes coincides with the recess, but they never coincide in England and Wales, so we shall have to do some balancing acts there.

Mr. David Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Taylor: No, I am sorry, but I must move on.
The fourth area that could be considered is not a priority, but it has been raised, particularly by new Members: it is the style and the symbolism that is associated with Parliament, which we have seen in the past few weeks. There is a feeling that, while it is good to reinforce our parliamentary traditions, we might be able to modify some aspects of them without any loss of ceremony or dignity.
Many practical problems arise with new Members not knowing colleagues or Members from other parties or the names of their constituencies, and ideas have been put forward on that. It would be unfortunate for the Committee to get bogged down in that matter at the expense of examining the basic role of Parliament, but it would be right at least to consider it in due course. [Interruption.] People will disagree, but that is why we will have a Committee to make recommendations.
Many of the changes that the Committee will consider will interact, and working on that Committee will be a serious commitment both in terms of time and responsibility. The House responded well to the Nolan recommendations. The special Select Committee operated to a tight schedule and worked extremely hard to bring about change. I hope that that will happen again with this modernisation Committee.
I am delighted to see so much interest in the House this evening. That is the best sign that we have had in many years that there is a serious intention to modernise this place, and I hope that we do not miss this window of opportunity.

Mr. Alastair Goodlad: Conservative Members welcome the opportunity of an early debate on parliamentary procedure. Like the President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), we are eager to listen to the views of colleagues.
Parliament has for centuries performed a role in debating and improving legislation, in holding the Executive to account and as the forum for debates of national importance. Conservative Members are

determined that Parliament, and particularly the House of Commons, should retain its central role in our political and national life. To do so, our procedures sometimes need reform. If it is clear that change is necessary or desirable, we shall support it. But if our institutions and procedures are working well, we shall defend them. The Conservative party is a pragmatic party, and we shall offer constructive opposition.
Those considerations have animated and will continue to guide our approach to reforming the House of Commons and our response to any recommendations which may be made by the proposed Select Committee on modernisation.
As the right hon. Lady said, some of the most significant reforms of Parliament have taken place during the past 18 years. The previous Government animated the establishment of the departmental Select Committees in 1979—perhaps the most important transfer of power from Government to Parliament this century.

Mr. Skinner: I cannot stand the excitement.

Mr. Goodlad: The hon. Gentleman persists in treating serious matters with levity, just as he treats trivial matters with his own brand of long-winded portentousness.

Mr. Skinner: Come on, Duracell.

Mr. Goodlad: The House has no escape from the hon. Gentleman, who continues to test the tolerance for which it is famous.

Mr. Skinner: I have got the right hon. Gentleman wound up.

Mr. Goodlad: I will now wind down, unless the hon. Gentleman wishes to delay the House even further.
Those Committees examine in great detail the way in which each Government Department spends its money, implements Government decisions and the policy that is followed. The reports are debated regularly on the Floor of the House. Professor Hennessy, the constitutional expert, said:
I rate the establishment of the so-called departmentally related Commons Select Committees in 1979 as not just the most significant parliamentary development of the post-war period, but the single most important clawback in terms of the relevant influence of the legislature and the executive since the Balfour reforms of 1902.
We shall obviously consider any proposals that come forward in connection with the Select Committees with the greatest care.
The television broadcasts which were introduced more than seven years ago were intended to give people a clearer idea of how Parliament works. Whether the way in which they have been used by the broadcaster has had that effect is a matter on which opinions may vary, but we are where we are and, if we wish to move we can move.
Many of the recommendations of the Jopling Committee set up in 1991 to examine the sittings of the House are now firmly in place. We work more civilised hours and we have set aside constituency days. More time has been set aside for private Members' business and the House now spends longer debating Select Committee reports.
Last year, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition proposed reforms which would help Parliament to scrutinise legislation still further. Most significantly, he suggested that detailed proposals for legislation be prepared not just for the next Session but in draft for the Session after that. That would allow Select Committees time to take evidence and report on Bills, and would give Parliament a more positive and forward-looking role.
Those are just a few of the reforms that were taken through the House in the previous Session to improve the work of Parliament. The Nolan committee was established in 1994 to assist in the maintenance of the highest standards in public life. It has produced two reports, and has resulted in improvements, such as bringing Ministers within the scope of the advisory committee on business appointments, an extension of the ombudsman's powers, a code of practice for the staff of quangos and more consultation between local quangos and councils. The third report, which will review local government, is due to be published this summer.
The right hon. Lady has raised a number of fresh matters, and that is extremely welcome. I hope that all hon. Members agree that we want to improve the quality of legislation, to hold the Government to account, and to make the best use of our parliamentary time. If the reforms put before the Committee and the House achieve those aims, we will support them and suggest how they might be improved.
Ministerial accountability was reviewed by the previous Government and Parliament. The review was endorsed by the Public Service Select Committee, and a resolution on ministerial accountability was drafted with the full co-operation and support of other parties and was passed by the House.
It is suggested that certain Bills should roll over into the following Session. We shall work with the Government to develop that proposal. It is also suggested that there should be more consultation on draft Bills before they pass through the House. Significant moves have already been made in that direction in the past 18 years, and we shall work with the Government on those proposals to see whether the approach can be further developed.
Progress has been made to remove out-dated Acts from the statute book. Under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, the Government can place an order before Parliament to amend or repeal legislation that has become burdensome. We shall examine the Government's proposals to audit out-dated legislation and consider whether they would be beneficial.
Suggestions have been made that we should change the structure of the parliamentary year. We want to see what issues emerge from that—the timing of recesses, working hours and so on—before we offer any comment, but we shall give careful consideration to the details of the Government's proposals when we have seen them. We welcome the promise by the Leader of the House of a Government memorandum for the Committee once it has been established.
There are also suggestions that departmental Select Committees should have new powers to confirm public appointments, such as the heads of the next step

agencies. We shall await further details, but it is our belief that constitutional accountability must remain with Ministers. Likewise, we await further details of the suggestion that the operation of the Opposition would be made more effective if civil servants were attached to senior figures.
We have reservations, however, on three particular points. First, the Government may seek to introduce a business committee to timetable legislation, which has traditionally been dealt with through the usual channels. The system has proved itself over the years: it has worked reasonably well. We accept that the Government have to steer their business through the House, but I am inclined to think that, if the usual channels cannot reach an agreement about the legislative programme, the final decision should be taken by the whole House. I would take some persuading that it should be taken by a small committee.
The second point relates to the Committee stage of constitutional Bills. We have reservations about the Government's intention to deal with some clauses of constitutional Bills away from the Floor of the House. I envisage problems with that approach, because what for some hon. Members may be a technical detail may for others be an important constitutional principle and not a mere technicality.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If the right hon. Gentleman is so keen for constitutional matters to be taken on the Floor of the House, what about using Tuesday and Thursday mornings to do so?

Mr. Goodlad: I certainly hope that the Committee will consider that. We have pointed out some of the difficulties of the broad-brush approach. Those who are versed in these matters, as the right hon. Lady has been for some time, know that the devil is very much in the detail.
The third point relates to the announcement from Downing street of the changes to Prime Minister's Question Time. Many hon. Members from all parties have made clear their distaste for the arbitrary way in which the change was introduced. It is clear that the manner of the announcement was inappropriate and sits uneasily with the Prime Minister's comments in his speech to the Charter 88 seminar on parliamentary reform in May 1996. He said:
the lesson of previous parliamentary change is that it has to be carried out with care and sensitivity…The rights of backbenchers have to be protected.

Mr. Skinner: In the past 18 years and before that, changes were made to departmental questions and questions generally. We should put this business in context. The right hon. Gentleman may recall that the Tory Government made a dramatic change. We used to have 20 minutes for Common Market Questions at 3.10 pm after Foreign Office Questions. That allowed me and hon. Members on both sides of the House to ask questions directly about the Common Market. When the Common Market became an embarrassment for the Tory Government, they did not move Common Market Questions to another day: they got rid of it altogether without any consultation or agreement. It is a bit rich for


Tory ex-Ministers to talk about consultation, when they got rid of a potentially embarrassing 20 minutes completely.

Mr. Goodlad: The more latitude that the Government allow the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to deploy his case in questions elsewhere, the more welcome it will be to us.
I shall return to the Prime Minister's views. He said:
the lesson of previous parliamentary change is that it has to be carried out with care and sensitivity…The rights of backbenchers have to be protected. They will understandably be wary of changes which appear to be advocated simply to make the job of government easier.
The decision to change Prime Minister's Questions was made without reference to the forthcoming Select Committee on modernisation. Moreover, such a proposal was rejected by the Select Committee on Procedure in 1995. I believe that the proposal should have gone to the new Select Committee on modernisation, should still do so, and probably will.
The Labour party's manifesto asserted that better scrutiny of Bills and better accountability of Ministers are desirable: nobody would quarrel with that. But it is up to hon. Members, rather than mere institutional arrangements, to hold Ministers to account and to scrutinise legislation. I am sure that the failings of the Opposition in the previous Parliament in scrutinising Bills—there certainly were failings—will not be repeated by the Opposition in the present Parliament.
We agree with the proposition that no one political party should dictate changes to parliamentary procedure, and that Parliament itself must own that process. There is clearly a danger that, when a political party has a substantial majority in the House, as at present, the interests of Parliament as a whole could be put at risk. I am sure that the right hon. Lady will restrain any tendency towards the arrogance of office that may from time to time be exhibited by her ministerial colleagues. Ultimately, it is up to the House to decide how we should conduct our affairs.
I trust that the Government will take seriously the deliberations and decisions of the Select Committee on modernisation that we are about to set up. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will consider its conclusions on their merits rather than on party political lines, and I hope that the Government will make no further announcements that rightly belong with the House. I am confident that the right hon. Lady, who has great experience in these matters—as did her predecessor, Tony Newton, to whom I pay tribute as she did the other day—will be the protector of the rights, privileges and duties of the House.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has given a number of pointers indicating the way in which our procedures can be changed. I want to add to them.
I think that the most important development for the current Parliament is the number of Government Back Benchers. We now have 418, a number unprecedented in modern times, and we must make some use of them. They are willing, able and extremely well qualified to add to the quality of our debates and our legislation, but some of

our procedures do not allow for that. My right hon. Friend spoke of better legislation, and mentioned the record number of draft Bills. That is an important point, because we now have a large number of people to examine those Bills.
Normally, in Standing Committees, Government Back Benchers are asked to be quiet so that the legislation can go through quickly. That may be all right when the Government have a narrow majority and do not know whether they will be able to put the legislation through, but these Back Benchers can be used to improve the quality of that legislation. There is no reason why such a large number should remain silent—and, in any event, it will not be possible to keep them silent. There are too many of them, and not enough of the jobs to which Back Benchers used to aspire in the past. We must provide jobs that will be useful and meaningful, and will benefit the legislation.

Mr. Gill: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 5, in which members of his party recommend that no one should serve on a Select Committee who has any declarable financial interest in the subject of the Committee's responsibility?
The right hon. Gentleman talks of employing the talents and experience of new Members, and I agree that that is desirable, but is it not slightly contradictory to say to those people—who have brought new talents and experience to the House—that they should not serve on Committees, where they will possibly have the greatest contribution to make? Does the right hon. Gentleman approve of the situation that seems to be developing? It appears that our Committees will be composed of people who have no expertise in the subjects involved, and will therefore be at the mercy of civil servants.

Mr. Sheldon: It will clearly depend on the nature of the interest involved; but, as I have not seen the early-day motion, I do not want to comment on it.
The way in which we have produced legislation recently is shameful. If hon. Members visit Somerset house, they will see that, in the last century, one book of financial legislation was produced per year, or perhaps in two or three years—until the past few years, for which there is a whole shelf of legislation for each year. Even more recently, the legislation has filled several shelves. Financial legislation has been pouring out at an immense rate, and the House has not been looking at it; but we now have people who can make some contribution.
Anyone who has been involved in a Standing Committee will know that, when it comes to draft legislation, there are always matters that Members of Parliament can raise which the drafters had not thought of. There is a different way of thinking about such matters. Given the quality of our new Members, I am sure that they will be able to make improvements, and to do work that has been waiting to be done. I look forward to the establishment of many more special Standing Committees. We have people who are able and anxious to operate them, and I agree with my right hon. Friend that we should proceed in that way.
I am all in favour of tradition, as long as it does not interfere with our work. Our traditions go back 700 years, and I consider that a plus; but, when they do interfere, we have got rid of them. If there are some traditions of which


I am not aware, or on which I have not concentrated enough, by all means let us change them, but we have benefited from the way in which the country has progressed, and we should continue to do so.
We have made a real mess of our financial year, and it is probably in that area that we can make the biggest change of all. We used to have the Budget in the spring; it would become an Act of Parliament by August, and the expenditure statement would be made in the autumn. It was felt, however, that expenditure and revenue should be brought together, so that we could say, "If you want this expenditure, you must incur this increase in taxation." It was a brilliant idea—no one can disagree with that—but, for obvious reasons, it did not happen.
The Government decide expenditure levels. It has never been possible for the House, and Back Benchers in particular, to say, "Yes, let us put a penny on income tax if we want to give something to education"—which is what the Liberals want—or, "Let us reduce income tax by so much, and reduce expenditure by so much." We could never operate a trade-off of that kind, but, without such a trade-off, the idea of bringing together revenue and expenditure was nonsense. All we did was have the Queen's Speech in November, followed two weeks later by the Budget, followed by seven months during which the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not make a speech in the House.
That is absurd. For as long as we see that we shall not be able to debate revenue and expenditure together, because Back Benchers will never have the right to increase expenditure or taxation, we can say that the autumn Budget has not been a success, and that we must adopt a more sensible arrangement—which means having the Budget statement in the spring, and debating clauses of general significance on the Floor of the House and the technical stuff in a Standing Committee. That arrangement was devised by the then Government in 1967. I remember that, under kin Macleod, we spent a day and a half in the Standing Committee discussing the temperature of Committee Room 10. It was brilliantly done, but it demonstrated that the whole House needed to be involved.
The present system is sensible. Matters of critical, general and observable importance that involve everyone—matters such as income tax and value added tax—are debated on the Floor of the House, while the technical aspects are debated in Standing Committee. I think that more issues should be debated on the Floor of the House, but I have a particular interest in that regard.
Attendance in the Chamber is a serious matter. Dick Crossman is responsible for the present position, because he devised a system to get rid of the count. Before 1967, if there were not 40 Members in the Chamber, the House had to adjourn within four minutes. The enormous advantage of that system was that there was always a body of Members in the Chamber. I know that everyone has much more constituency correspondence to deal with now, and we are unlikely to return to the old arrangement; but that is the difference between the House as it was then, and the House as it is now.
For debates on important matters, it is important to have hon. Members cheering others on or being prepared to show that something is wrong. However, we have to

deal with constituency matters, and we now have a free post, free telephones, secretaries and television in offices. More people than ever are probably watching our debates on television, but they are not participating. It is voices in the present that electrify the House and such electrification is what makes it the place that it is. That happens only at Prime Minister's Question Time and on one or two other special occasions. It used to be much more common, and I hope that we can find some way to improve matters.

Mr. John Maxton: It is pointless sitting here when there is so much constituency work and Select Committee and Standing Committee work as well as other work to be done. Nine hon. Members in 10 or 99 out of a hundred are unable to take part in debates because so many wish to participate. Sitting here does not seem to be the most useful way for an hon. Member to use his time.

Mr. Sheldon: I agree. There is much work to do. We must see to correspondence and telephone calls and we look after our constituents in a way that our predecessors did not. However, something is being lost in that process, and anything that can be done to enable us to return to some aspect of what we had would be valuable.
Standing Order 20 debates are at the discretion of the Speaker. Madam Speaker rightly decides whether a specific and important matter should have urgent consideration. If she decides that they deserve priority, they are debated. In the past few years, there has been an increase in such debates, and we are grateful to Madam Speaker for making that improvement. The procedure had almost fallen into disuse until the past few years, and it has brought alive some of the important issues. Such rights are important, and whatever can be done to allow them to continue deserves our encouragement.
Select Committees are enormously important. Their great value is that they bring together people from all parts of the House to look at the facts. It is astonishing how well people can work together in areas of common interest. I shall give an extreme example: it is not typical by any means. The Public Accounts Committee operates like that. We looked at all the privatisations. There were enormous differences in Committee, but our remit was to see whether privatisation was carried out efficiently and gave proper value for money. The Government decision is not questioned. Such operations are evident in other Select Committees. Their members look at the facts and try to find how a process can be made more efficient. They may say, "The Government have got this wrong and should be doing more." A Select Committee's enormous advantage is being able to look at the facts and bring them to the attention of Ministers.
I have mentioned the areas in which I hope there will be some improvements. Obviously, we must continue to change to the advantage of hon. Members and that of our constituents.

Sir Peter Emery: In following the speech by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), I should like to mention one of the old traditions of the House, that in debates each speaker picked up points that the previous speaker had made. I should like to add to what the right hon. Gentleman said


about the problems and the development of taxation and tax legislation. He will recall that, just before Parliament dissolved for the election, we approved procedures to allow tax simplification Bills to be introduced to try to reduce the many orders on tax law. I hope that the Leader of the House will allow those procedures to operate as soon as possible.
I congratulate the Leader of the House on her appointment. I shall attempt to be non-partisan, with the exception of one matter, which I shall mention later. Many hon. Members want to play a political game, but many of us are honestly interested in trying to improve the way that Parliament operates and legislation is scrutinised. The right hon. Lady has heard me say many times that I have spent 14 years trying to drag our procedures screaming into the 20th century. If she can continue with that tradition into the 21st century, I shall be delighted.
We must proceed only with the agreement of the whole House. When that is not achieved, attempts at modernisation will frequently fail—the introduction of morning sittings in the 1960s is an illustration of that.
I shall now turn to the partisan matter, but I shall not dwell on it, because it is to be debated. The Leader of the House was ill advised to introduce the new format for Prime Minister's Question Time without consultation or consideration and against the recommendation of the Procedure Committee. On that Committee, four of her hon. Friends, one of whom is now a Minister, agreed with the recommendation that a new format was not to the advantage of the House. We shall return to that matter.

Mr. Connarty: The hon. Gentleman speaks about procedure and consultation. Does he not think that the new format is a vast improvement on the turmoil over the past five years during Prime Minister's questions?

Sir Peter Emery: The Procedure Committee made suggestions for improving Prime Minister's Question Time. However, they were not debated, because it was not the wish of the then Leader of the Opposition to move in the way that he has now moved. I have read to the House the letter that he wrote to the Committee.
The value of Prime Minister's Question Time derives from open-ended questions. In a debate with me on television, the new leader of the parliamentary Labour party spoke about questions in depth. When that happens, it will do away with the open-ended question and it will be an entirely different way to proceed. Judging by press comments on Prime Minister's questions, the new format is no better than the old one.
On two occasions, the Procedure Committee made recommendations about the timetabling of Bills. First, it recommended a legislation business committee. When that was debated, it faced the strongest opposition from all parts of the House that I have ever known. All the Front-Bench Labour spokesmen opposed it, and there was a one-line whip. The Government payroll vote turned out in full to defeat it. I remember that because it was debated on my birthday, and it was a birthday present of no great value after a great deal of work by the Procedure Committee.
The Committee took another sheet of paper and made further suggestions about the way that every part of legislation should be considered by Committees. There is

something wrong when only a third or even less of a Bill has been considered upstairs before returning to the House. We must find a way to overcome that. Perhaps the Leader of the House will ask the Committee that she proposes to set up to look at the final suggestion by the Procedure Committee. It set out a method by which such a problem could be dealt with in Committee by ensuring that every part of a Bill would be considered before it was reported. That is of considerable importance in improving the manner in which the House deals with legislation.
I ask the Leader of the House to look again at the work of the European Standing Committees. The Procedure Committee originally recommended that there should be five Committees, but only two were appointed. They have not functioned well, because the amount of work that two Committees have had to do on a range of subjects has been much too much for the people who have had to serve on them. We suggested five Committees on different subjects so that we could build up expertise on tax and trade in one Committee, agriculture in another, transport and other factors in another, and so on. We could have encouraged specialists on those subjects to serve on those European Standing Committees. At present, we almost have to drag people into serving on European Standing Committees because it is such a drudge. They should be a way of using the talents of the House better than they have used before.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: As someone who served in the last Parliament for five years on European Standing Committee B, I endorse what my right hon. Friend says. Does he agree that there is something rather daft about a legislative process in which we discuss draft documents before Ministers go off to debate matters in the Council of Ministers and we never receive a report so that we can give a view on whether the deal that Ministers have concluded is right or wrong for this country? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we had more Committees, we could have time for a proper report from Ministers and time to cross-examine them so that they were properly brought to account on how they delivered what they told the Committee they would?

Sir Peter Emery: I accept what my hon. Friend says. There is no way of doing that if we have only two Committees, because they are permanently full of work and cannot check on what has been achieved. It would be to the benefit of the House and the country to know how the regulations were dealt with by Ministers in Europe.
I recommend to the Leader of the House other suggestions by the Procedure Committee on the way in which European business is dealt with. We went to the extent of recommending stronger links with the European Parliament. The one way in which the House of Commons can have influence on the way in which European legislation is passed is for it to influence the European Committees which deal with it. There could be a link between our Select Committees and European Committees so that European Committees know the views of the House. That does not happen at present.
I have suggested the appointment of—to use a European term—a rapporteur to each of the departmental Select Committees, whose job would be to be in touch with rapporteurs of similar Committees in the European Parliament so that we know what is going on. We should have a link so that we can influence their decisions at the


stage of drawing up reports, not after the rapporteur has made his report. That would give us some input into regulations that come out of Brussels such as we have never been able to achieve.
Other recommendations of the Procedure Committee, which again have not been debated, relate to the way in which we should scrutinise statutory instruments. It is—I was going to say criminal—lax beyond belief that, in the last Session of Parliament, we saw more than 2,200 pieces of secondary legislation. We spent all our time on the 22 Bills, but 26,000 pieces of secondary legislation slipped through with hardly any consideration. We have recommended a sifting Committee which could examine secondary legislation much more closely than we have ever done before. I hope that the Leader of the House will consider that in full.
I am a traditionalist and I do not mind admitting it, but I agree with what the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said. Where the traditions of the House are useless and nonsense, let us not carry them forward. For example, do we really have to troop down to the House of Lords the first moment that a new Parliament meets for permission to elect a Speaker? Surely, as the primary Parliament of this nation, we should have the right to elect a Speaker. Then let us report to the monarch in the traditional way, and seek her approval. It is unnecessary for us to seek permission.

Mr. Maxton: Will the right hon. Gentleman extend his argument and ask why a Government elected by the people of this country should traipse down the Corridor to listen to the Queen tell us what we are going to do?

Sir Peter Emery: I happen to believe that some of the traditions of this country, which are admired throughout the world, attract tourism and are part of the strength and standing of Britain in the world, should be maintained. That is one, and I would not wish to see it abolished. I hope that there is some support for that position even on the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Winnick: As the right hon. Gentleman says, the Procedure Committee in the last Parliament made a recommendation which the Conservative Government would not accept—that we should not ask permission to elect a Speaker. I trust that the Labour Government—more radical than the last—will implement that recommendation. The right hon. Gentleman was honest enough to say that he was a traditionalist. Should not the House be a workplace? Why the wigs, why the gowns? What purpose do they serve? Parliament is not a tourist attraction. With the greatest respect to you, Madam Speaker, when the Deputy Speakers are in the Chair they wear modern dress, and they command the same respect as the Speaker. It is not necessary to dress up just because something happened 400 or 500 years ago. There is no need for the Clerks to wear gowns.

Sir Peter Emery: If I may say so, Madam Speaker, I do not consider the way you look in the Chair as dressing up. You bring dignity to this place, and do it with great charm.
We must help Scottish Members in a way in which my Government did not. It is right and proper that we should arrange the summer sittings to allow Scottish Members of

Parliament to spend some time with their family before their children go back to school. If that means that the House has to come back for two weeks—say, the second and third weeks of September—to complete some business, it would not be a bad thing and would accommodate an area of the country which is pretty set upon by the timing of the sittings of the House at present.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: rose—

Sir Peter Emery: I give way to my friend.

Mr. Pike: Apart from Scotland, many parts of Lancashire and other parts of the country have traditional wakes weeks. Burnley's holidays, for example, are the first fortnight in July. Those parts of the country are equally affected by the problem of the timing of the summer recess.

Sir Peter Emery: I knew that I would not have to say much about Lancashire because my hon. Friend, who has been a member of my Committee, has always stood up well and properly for the rights of Lancashire.
Might I also suggest to the President of the Council that she should look at Command Paper 397 which sets out the work of the Procedure Committee of the previous Parliament in which a number of her hon. Friends participated? That report contains a number of extra thoughts and ideas that are worthy of consideration. I hope that the new Committee, it will not be known as the Jopling Committee, but perhaps the Taylor Committee or whatever, will give some further thought to that report.
May I offer a revolutionary thought?

Sir Patrick Cormack: Be careful.

Sir Peter Emery: I would like to advocate the setting up of a parliamentary television channel. I believe that there is much more interest among the public about what happens in this House than we know. I accept that it might not be possible to show the work of the Select Committees at the time that they are sitting, but reports at other times of their work would be of interest to many of our constituents. They would also be interested in this type of debate, which would attract no attention on the normal television channels.
There is some considerable merit in us considering the establishment of a parliamentary television channel, even if it has to be managed or paid for by the House. It would be a great service to our constituents because it would enable them to see to a greater extent the work of Parliament. The broadcast of Prime Minister's Question Time gives a wrong impression of the work of the House and it would be useful if we could overcome it.
I wish the right hon. Lady well for the Committee that she sets up. I hope that perhaps I can make some contribution to it. If it operates according to the concept of working not in a party political manner on either side but for the greater benefit of the House as a whole, it will be a success.

Mrs. Gwyneth P. Dunwoody: I had contemplated making a speech of four and a half hours on procedure, but somehow I suspect that I might


not be terribly popular. I will therefore be as brief as I can, but I believe that this happens to be one of the most important debates that we could have.
The procedures of this place are not just a matter of arcane debate, but the methods by which we pass laws. I hope that, when we come to debate any changes, we shall seriously consider not only what has gone before but the hazards that we sometimes face in seeking to modernise without totally understanding what we are doing.
For example, may I point out that the House actually sits fewer hours than it did before the Jopling report recommendations were accepted? It has abandoned the privilege, and an extremely hard-fought privilege, of Back-Bench Members having the right to introduce private Member's notions on a Friday and have votes on them in exchange for a number of hours of debate on a Wednesday morning. It is perfectly true that we were told, "Give up Fridays and you'll still have the same number of hours of debate," but it is also true that we do not have votes on Wednesday morning.
Individual constituency matters may be raised on a Wednesday morning, but, because we do not have such votes on Friday, we shall no longer be able to influence legislation such as that passed previously on abortion law and homosexual reform. Many of the Bills that were introduced in the first Parliament that I enjoyed as a Member would have faced considerable difficulties if an exchange had then been made between Fridays with voting rights for Wednesday morning debates. It is important that we realise that.
On the European Committees, it is not good enough simply to say that we should staff five more such Committees. Of course one could and one should, but Members must turn up and do the work. The House has to give those Committees the right, and not an alternative right, to bring a resolution to the Floor of the House and have it debated. At the moment, it does not matter how much work we do upstairs in those European Committees—no decision reached in Committee is brought back to the Floor of the House and voted on. No matter how strongly one may feel about any matter, that cannot influence the final result. It does not matter whether one has 10,000 connections with the European Parliament—no one will take any more notice than they do at the present time. It is important to realise that.
Above all, I would say to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that we should explain to people that one of the problems in the previous Parliament was its parliamentarians. We skip over that. If people sit in Committees and do not listen to what is said or take part in the amending resolutions, it does not matter how often we change where we sit or how many electronic toys we have. If that happens, it does not matter how many people we get rid of in exchange for a number of gadgets that somehow give the impression that we have been modernised. If we do not do the work, if we do not listen, participate or check what is happening at Government level as well as every other level, the House of Commons is the poorer for it.
I must also ask my right hon. Friend to look first at the role of Government. Look at why parliamentary draftsmen are not given enough time to come up with effective and properly drafted legislation. Look at why so many Committees in the House have to deal not only with existing legislation but with a thousand amendments

tabled by Ministers who are panicked at the final moment when they discover suddenly that the legislation says something different from what they expected it to say.
Those are important matters, and they will not be altered by saying to people they now have all sorts of new toys that they did not have before and that therefore they must have better control over the legislature. That is not what happens. Back Benchers have to look at everything that happens. They have to read it, and they must be very careful about understanding what it says. That must be done irrespective of the Government who are in power.
The House is very well served by servants of all types at every level. The people who service the House day by day in all its Departments are of an astonishingly high standard. We must stop treating them as though they were pawns to be moved around a chessboard without consultation, without understanding their problems and without allowing them a response. We must not think that it does not matter if we decide to do different hours and introduce different arrangements. We must not think that that is of no importance to the people who work here and who, after all, enjoy a lower level of consultation than we would accept in the worst sweatshop factory anywhere in our own constituencies. I find that offensive and unacceptable. I will not sit quietly by and see that happen.
I hope that it will be accepted by the House that even those of us who seem to be subject to the agist attack that we have been here a long time may have the odd word to say. We may not get in very often and we may take up rather more time than some of our colleagues would like, but we will have things to say about the procedures of the House of Commons because those very procedures, those Standing Orders—those very things that people do not read—are important. That failure to read means that some do not understand that sitting in a Committee does not mean just getting up and reading out a brief from a pressure group. It is not a matter of appearing whenever it suits someone, without considering in detail what is in front of him or her. It means doing a lot of work and considering the implications, and certainly the effects, of what we are doing.
Let me tell my right hon. Friend that some of us crusty, ancient, unhelpful Members, anti-social as we may be, will be around to make sure that the House of Commons still preserves the rights of Back Benchers.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), because I agree with every word she said. I hope to be able to pick up on one or two of the points that she made.
I agree with the hon. Lady about the role of private Members. I first came to the House in 1974. Perhaps I should explain to some hon. Members who might not be aware of it that I am the prize retread, because I was kicked out again and earned my living with a real job for 18 years before I came back in 1992. I agree with the hon. Lady that in that period there has been a diminution in the way in which the private Member can produce substantial and important legislation and take it through the House.
The role of the private Member's Bill must be re-examined with considerable urgency. Although I very much welcome what the Leader of the House has said this


evening and the intentions that she has expressed, it is an area about which hon. Members on both sides of the House share some concern. We seem to have pushed all those Bills into Fridays, when Government Whips can dispose of them all too easily when the shutters fall.
In response to the points made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, my suggestion is that, instead of Wednesday mornings being taken up with constituency and other matters on which there are no votes—and which I know, from having participated, are good debates but with just a limited number of hon. Members involved—they should be used for private Member's Bills, when we are all here and can vote substantially on substantial issues.
The matters now taken on Wednesday mornings could be moved to Monday mornings. Those of us who want to raise particular questions, particular constituency interests or participate in a wider-ranging debate involving a small number of Members could attend on a Monday morning. We could get through such business on a Monday morning effectively and without the need for votes. It is a simple, practical suggestion which I offer to the Leader of the House.
The right hon. Lady has come to the House openly and honestly today. On behalf of the Government, she has said that it is a moment in time when this great institution should look at the way in which it operates to see whether we can measure up to our great history and our great potential. In that context, I looked up Edmund Burke, which is always useful:
Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but Parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich echoed that. We are a deliberative Assembly. Parliament has a glorious past; it is a glorious beast—but it is glorious because it has managed to move with the times, not because it has become stuck in a particular era. It is perfectly true that we have moved in technology, in economy and in culture, but we have not moved as fast or as far as the body politic. Surely that must be the question now hanging over the institution of Parliament.
During recent weeks, we have heard a great deal about the sovereignty of Parliament. The sovereignty of Parliament is far more at risk from getting out of step with the general body politic of the United Kingdom than it would ever be from threats from Brussels or anywhere else. The pace of progress has been far faster outside this place than it has been inside it. I ask the Leader of the House to look carefully at the way in which the House will have to change to reflect the situation in the world outside.
We are no longer a two-party state. To a considerable extent, we are still a two-party Parliament, but ever since the 1950s the majority of people in this country have not voted for the Government; they have not even necessarily voted for the two main parties in many parts of the country. During the past few days, I have been amused to see Conservative Members popping up like jacks-in-the-box complaining that the Government do not have a mandate because they got the support of only 43 per cent. of those who voted. I do not

remember hearing them complaining when the Thatcher Governments were elected on similar proportions but did not have a mandate.
Just this morning, the newly elected chairman of the 1922 Committee made such a complaint. I welcome him to the ranks of those who support electoral reform, although I am not sure whether it will be of much help to the cause to have his support.
As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) said in a notable, passionate maiden speech, the people of Cornwall managed to become the first Celtic country to be a Tory-free zone. We were followed later by Wales and Scotland. Now, members of the Conservative party in those areas are complaining that they have no influence over the election of the next Leader of the Opposition. I have news for them—whoever it is will not be Leader of the Opposition for long, because we shall take over the opposition role. In the meantime, it is an obvious absurdity that we have an electoral system in which a substantial number of votes in the Celtic countries are not reflected in the House. That is also true across the country. Until 1 May, large areas of the country were not represented in this place if people happened to vote for the Labour party. That cannot be right.
I welcome the fact that the Government have made it absolutely clear that they will move forward and look at the whole question of the status of this elected Assembly, how it operates and how representative it is. The Home Secretary's statement in the debate on Monday—that there will be rapid progress on an electoral commission and that its remit and membership will be decided before the summer recess—is a great step forward.
I am a beneficiary of the first-past-the-post system. When I first came to this House, I had a majority of nine, after six recounts. On the morning of 2 May, my majority had risen to almost 14,000. Therefore, I do not complain out of self-interest. The British people have a right to complain that they are not getting the elected Assembly to which they are entitled, and that we come here with a damaged mandate.
Of course, the symbolism is attractive to tourists, but for goodness sake let us not worry about whether the Clerks wear wigs or whether we have to walk up and down a Corridor—that is peripheral; that is a triviality. The key issue is whether we are doing our job properly.
The trenchant contributions, from both sides of the House, on the extent to which we are currently scrutinising European legislation are extremely important. I sat on the Procedure Committee and we did some work on that matter. I am staggered by the weight of work load suffered by some of our colleagues on Committees. It cannot go on, because our constituents are getting a bad bargain as a result.
I very much welcomed the speech of the right hon. Member for Ashton—under—Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I thought his expert contribution to our discussion about how we timetable the taxation and expenditure plans of the nation was absolutely right. We should consider that matter carefully.
The very shape of this place must be considered carefully. On a previous occasion, I opened a debate, on behalf of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, and pointed out that, were it not for the historical accident that Edward VI had a redundant chapel available for the House of Commons of the day to sit in, we would not have the


absurd adversarial system we have in this place. Similarly, if the French had not had the redundant royal tennis court, they might have ended up like us and we might have ended up like them. The Americans would have followed suit.
We have to think carefully about how this place operates. It is absurd that so many Labour Members are trying to get on to the Labour Benches—and not just absurd, but uncomfortable. We must find a way of utilising the Cross Benches: bring in the carpenters and make this not only a better representative Assembly, but one in which we can operate to more effect.
What about the usual channels? As Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, I am a new, third major channel in this place. However, on behalf of Back Benchers and the minority parties, I have to say that the usual channels are a great mystery. I am sure that we could bring more out into the open and that more could be done in the new triangle between the three parties. We must ensure that Back Benchers and the minority parties have the opportunity to affect that situation. The tripartite arrangement is a step in the right direction, but it is not sufficient.
I am sure that we shall have to find ways to relieve the Speaker and Deputy Speakers of the difficult job that they have to do in making the arithmetical assessments across the Floor of the House in every debate as they try to work out who should speak, how and when. It is an unfair burden to place on the Speaker and Deputy Speakers, and we should not expect them to perform those gymnastics. We must look again at the Standing Orders. Perhaps we can learn something from the other place, where a simple system seems to work well.
All those issues are matters for the whole House. While it is important that the new Committee should have as wide a remit as possible, it would be wrong to ask its members to go into such detail, over such a length of time, that no progress was made in the House. I hope that the Leader of the House will agree that the new Committee could make proposals, as the Procedure Committee has previously, but not attempt to make a wide range of recommendations on every issue. It is particularly important to address the concerns of current Back Benchers, a great many of whom would otherwise feel frozen out of the true business of Parliament.
In a document entitled "A Parliament for the People", my party produced an extensive report on some detailed issues. The group was chaired by a distinguished former servant of the House, the former Clerk, Mr. Michael Ryle, and the proposals in the document have been well thought through. I hope that, by handing it over to the new Committee, we can ensure that all the minor, but important, matters are carefully considered.
It would be easy to get bogged down in the trivialities of who knocks on which door and what they wear, but our constituents deserve better. It is significant that the Press Gallery is almost empty; it is a sad reflection of the media's interest in the way this place works. We have to look to ourselves to improve it and to ensure that the media—and through them, the public—recognise that this is a great institution with a great role to play.

9 pm

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech when you, Madam Speaker, are in the Chair, given your other role as chancellor of the Open university, which is one of Milton Keynes's greatest exports.
I should like to start my parliamentary career in a relatively traditional way and speak of my predecessors who have represented the seat successively known as Buckingham, Milton Keynes and, since 1992, Milton Keynes, South-West. As well as being constituency Members of Parliament of merit, they have had unusual careers.
Two of my predecessors changed political parties. Aidan Crawley was elected as the first Labour Member of Parliament for Buckingham in 1945. He lost the seat and was elected elsewhere as a Conservative Member of Parliament. Sir Frank Markham, having been a Labour Member of Parliament and a parliamentary private secretary to Ramsay MacDonald, was elected as Conservative Member of Parliament for Buckingham. He is well known in the locality: not only was a school named after him, but he wrote a seminal work, a history of Milton Keynes, which I commend to hon. Members.
Two of my other predecessors gained notoriety owing to allegations of financial and/or electoral irregularity: Robert Maxwell and my immediate predecessor, Barry Legg. I pay tribute to Mr. Legg for his work on the Treasury Select Committee and for introducing a private Member's Bill on the control of drugs in nightclubs just before the last election.
My other predecessor, Bill Benyon, was the Conservative Member of Parliament for Buckingham from 1970–83 and the first Member of Parliament for Milton Keynes, from 1983–92. He is a particularly apt role model to cite in today's debate. He was an excellent constituency Member of Parliament and, when announcing in 1992 that he would not stand again after 22 years of service, he said:
I am very disillusioned. One of my interests in Parliament was trying to reform its archaic procedures.
I hope that, in my time as the Member of Parliament for Milton Keynes, South-West, we shall succeed in reforming the archaic procedures of Parliament and that I can therefore be a worthy successor to Bill Benyon.
My constituency is one half of the city of Milton Keynes. It combines the older centres of Stony Stratford, Wolverton and Bletchley with the much newer communities of Loughton and Woughton. The importance of excellent transport links to Milton Keynes is emphasised by the fact that there are four railway stations in my constituency, not all of which I use all the time.
As a scientist, I am proud of the importance of science, engineering and technology to industrial innovation in Milton Keynes. Wolverton is the home of the railway engineering works where the royal train used to be kept. Bletchley is famous for Bletchley Park where, during the second world war, the Enigma codes were broken using Colossus, the world's first computer, which fills a room about half the size of the Chamber. I am hopeful that under this Government Bletchley Park will succeed in its lottery bid to fund the museum and employment scheme at that important historic site.
Milton Keynes is a unique place: it is the only new city in the United Kingdom and is built, as those hon. Members who have visited it will know, on an American grid system with extensive environmental landscaping. It has a young population and is an optimistic and forward-looking place. Most of the residents have positively chosen to live there, in the expectation that their lives would be made better. Milton Keynes was, to some extent, failed by the previous Government in that its


growth should have been complete by now. It should have a population of 250,000, but actually has fewer than 200,000, and 17 per cent. of the land is undeveloped.
My constituents and those in the other half of Milton Keynes are looking to Labour's policies to provide the environment in which Milton Keynes can develop, in particular to give us the stability and the investment in education and training on which our business growth depends. Businesses in Milton Keynes have frequently told me that their growth is held back by skills shortages, yet, at the same time, 3,000 school leavers come on to the job market every year in Milton Keynes and there are 800 unemployed under-25s. I hope that Labour's policies will bring those two problems together and will give our young people the opportunity to participate in the city's growth while allowing businesses to fuel further growth.
As befits a new city, the people of Milton Keynes take a fresh approach to problem solving—they are not hidebound by tradition—and I shall cite two examples. First, our businesses have joined the chamber of commerce with the training and enterprise council and the representatives of business on that chamber are elected by businesses in Milton Keynes. The unitary council in Milton Keynes and the chamber work closely together and are jointly committed both to economic development and to combating inequality. Businesses in Milton Keynes understand that only an inclusive society that uses the talents of everyone can provide an environment in which business can flourish.
The second example is in education: all the secondary schools in Milton Keynes, whether grant maintained or not, work together co-operatively. That might have something to do with the fact that the city's grant-maintained schools went grant-maintained so as to remain comprehensive schools and to avoid being forced to become selective by the county council, which then controlled them.
My electors voted for me because they wanted me to be part of a parliamentary Labour party that delivered on Labour's promises, as well as wanting me to represent their interests. They expect parliamentary procedures to facilitate the process of government and the implementation of the Government's programme, while including the proper safeguards for the Opposition to scrutinise that legislation. From speaking to my constituents on their doorsteps, I know that they are not always impressed by what they see on television or by some of the legislation that has emerged from Parliament. The obvious recent example of the latter was the legislation that gave us the Child Support Agency which, within a couple of days of my election, was furnishing the vast majority of the complaints that I received from constituents.
Another reason I have for stating why I think the procedures of the House need amending has to do with the sort of people who seek election as Members of Parliament. A good feature of this Parliament is that it is somewhat more representative of the population at large than previous Parliaments—obviously, I am referring to the number of women Members—but it is still not very representative of the population at large in terms of gender, ethnicity, social class or life experience. Many people are put off even thinking about becoming Members of Parliament because of the procedures of this place, so that is another good reason for changing them.
At risk of being controversial, which I know I am not supposed to do in my maiden speech, I have to say that I do not find the adversarial atmosphere of the House to be particularly helpful or conducive to constructive debate. We need to consider changing the way in which the House operates. In addition to suggestions made by hon. Members who have already spoken, I suggest that some sort of time limit on speeches might be quite helpful. I strongly agree with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that we should consider the physical arrangements of the House. It is ridiculous that Labour Members cannot sit on the Opposition Benches below the Gangway without people starting to think that, emulating my two predecessors, they have changed party.
I commend to the House the attitude of the people in Milton Keynes: that we should concentrate on how best to achieve the desired outcome and that we should be prepared to think anew without being bound by tradition. I hope that the House will do it in a shorter time than 22 years.

Mr. Robert Jackson: Procedure is an arcane topic. In a venerable institution such as the House of Commons, it is liable to be taken for granted, with only a small group of procedural experts refining the details of ancient custom and practice while the rest of us get on with what we want to do under the rules as we find them.
The danger in that is that our House of Commons will fail to move with the times. Like the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey), whom I congratulate on her elegant maiden speech, I am not a procedural expert, but I envisage three dangers in the discussions.
One danger is that, in our self-satisfaction with our 700 years of history, broadening down from precedent to precedent, we shall fail to pay regard to the way in which bodies like ours function elsewhere—sometimes better than we do. Another is that we shall tend to regard small innovations as huge breakthroughs, which is how I would characterise the establishment view of the Select Committees. The third danger is that we shall tend to make the changes that we do make in a such a piecemeal fashion that the ramifications and interactions of those changes are never fully worked out in advance.
For those reasons, I enthusiastically support the Government's proposal for a new Select Committee on Procedure. Such a Committee could and should help us to overcome the dangers that I have mentioned. It goes without saying that the Government must carry all parties in the House with them in the reform of its procedures; but the huge majority that the Government currently have gives them an historic opportunity and a major incentive to undertake extensive procedural developments.
The opportunity lies in the fact that the Government have such a big majority that they can afford to create new procedures, offering a chance of genuine pluralism in our debates and decision making. The incentive is that, if they fail to do so, they will soon encounter serious demoralisation—and worse—on their Back Benches.
I suppose that most new Labour Members, like Conservative Members, have entered Parliament, not only determined to give of their best in the public service, but wholly persuaded that theirs will be more than a full-time job. It remains to be seen how they will feel when they


discover the facts of life under our existing procedures. They will be lucky to catch Madam Speaker's eye more than once a month or so at Question Time, and perhaps once every six months for a debate in the Chamber, with an audience of about 10 colleagues.
They will not be selected to serve on the Standing Committees of Bills in respect of which their expertise makes them too keen to serve, and when they are summoned to Standing Committee duty they will be told by their Whips that speeches are unwelcome—that has been mentioned several times tonight—so it will be a good opportunity for them to catch up with constituency correspondence.
If they happen to be one of the minority summoned to serve on a Select Committee—probably one on a subject on which they are not too conveniently well-informed—they will find that it takes months for the Government to respond to their reports, and that when they do, they show scant regard for their labours.
Perhaps I have been exaggerating for effect, but Members who have been in the House for some time know that there is a large measure of truth in the sombre picture that I have painted. What should we do about it?
I shall make a concrete proposal in a moment, but to lead into it, let me return to what I said about piecemeal changes whose full ramifications are not thought through.
The starting point of all our procedural debates should be the so-called Jopling reforms of the last Parliament, which have been mentioned. These welcome changes reflected the reality that hon. Members were no longer willing to sustain the pretence that open-ended debates and the archaic ritual of the all-night sitting offered effective parliamentary control over the Executive.
The truth is that the Jopling reforms went only half the distance. They dismantled one admittedly obsolete system of parliamentary influence—that which was based on the struggle for parliamentary time—but failed to erect an alternative system. The net effect is that Parliament is now even weaker vis-a-vis the Executive than before. The challenge to us in this Parliament is surely to build that alternative system for which Jopling created the space.
I urge the House to take to heart the other dangers that I have mentioned in our time-honoured approach to procedural reform: our complacency about the way in which other Parliaments—I have heard them referred to here as lesser Parliaments—work. I believe that we have much to learn from them. In a modern legislature, the main source of parliamentary influence over the Executive is to be found in the structures of institutionalised pluralism and a diversity of centres of influence which have to be negotiated with and operated by a well-informed and professionally disciplined cadre of Members. The best way to ensure that—as we can see by looking at Parliaments on the continent of Europe, in the United States and in the Commonwealth—is to rebuild our parliamentary life around an array of powerful subject-specialist committees.
My proposal, accordingly, is that we do away with the existing Standing Committees and Select Committees. Our Standing Committees are constituted ad hoc for particular legislation so that there is no continuity of membership or accumulation of expertise in them. Their membership is determined in reality by agents of the Executive in the Whips Office. Their Chairmen are limited to a purely procedural role which denies them any influence over policy.
Our Select Committees, meanwhile, do not compensate for these deficiencies. Their membership is once again controlled by the Whips and, more fundamentally, their arduous investigations are wholly disconnected from the legislative process, so that they have no levers with which to give practical effect to such expertise as they may develop. To replace these arrangements, we need a new unified Committee structure—a system of specialist Committees, each with its own subject area. By the way, these should not be limited to particular Departments of the Government.
The Committees should be constituted at the beginning of each Parliament, and every Member of Parliament who is not a member of the Government should be a member of at least one of those Committees. Their composition must reflect the balance of the House, but although the Whips will have a hand in deciding who goes where, their influence will be much diminished by the fact that all Members must be found a place. Each Committee should choose its own Chairman and Vice-Chairman to serve for at least two years under an overall agreement, giving a fair share of these positions to each party.
The task of these specialist Committees should include the conduct of investigations into whatever area of policy they choose within their remit—that is the function of the existing Select Committees. They should include also the detailed scrutiny of all legislation—primary and secondary, national and European—falling within their remit. That is the function of the present Standing Committees.
In both functions—the investigative and the legislative—they should be led not by Ministers, but by hon. Members of whatever party who are chosen by the Committee to serve as rapporteurs on a particular subject or a particular Bill. Rapporteurs should assist in another function that I see the new Committees performing—scrutinising expenditure on policies within their field of reference. That is a task that—with all respect to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)—I believe the existing Public Accounts Committee does not have the subject-based expertise to perform.
The arrangements that I am suggesting would give every Back Bencher a serious job to do and would ensure that Members were much better informed and up to date in their knowledge than they can hope to be under our present system. They would create in the institutional esprit de corps of each Committee and in the persons of its Chairman, Vice-Chairman and rapporteur the genuinely pluralistic network of diffused centres of influence which is the only viable basis for an effective modern legislature.
In concluding, let me briefly address two words to Front-Bench Members on both sides of the House about the implications for them of the radical procedural change that I suggest. To my right hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, let me freely admit that my suggestion will make it much more difficult to pursue the traditional line that the Opposition's duty is to oppose. Is it not time to recognise not only that that approach has always been something of a myth, but that it is now a wholly discredited myth in the public mind? An increasingly well-informed public look to us for constructive debate and a focus on the detailed improvement of legislation and its implementation, not for the impotent posturing that our traditional structures encourage.
To right hon. Members on the Government Front Bench, let me say that my proposal may look like a great renunciation of Executive power—the Government's power always to get their way in the House of Commons without negotiation. That would indeed be so, but the prize for the Executive is worth it. The prize will be Government legislation that reflects a more genuine and solidly based consent than it enjoys at present—legislation that enjoys the reinforced legitimacy that can come only from a Parliament that is seen to work in ways that command the public's respect.

Mr. Paul Flynn: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) in his interesting and radical suggestions, which I hope the Committee will study in detail, but shall follow up the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey). I hope that she and all the other new Back Benchers find the same joy and fulfilment as I have found as a Back Bencher by choice over the past seven years. Sadly, they might be Back Benchers by the arithmetic of this place.
My hon. Friend illustrated two main changes in this place. She speaks as a scientist, and the House has had a tradition of being scarcely scientifically literate. If we can get our decisions on to a basis of scientific reasoning, it would be a major leap forward.
She made another profound point. When I was a junior Back-Bench spokesman, I served with a senior Front-Bench spokesman who was a man, and then with two senior Front-Bench spokesmen who were women. There was an enormous difference between those two roles. With the male senior spokesman, our role was confrontational and challenging. We debated for hours, sometimes all through the night, but achieved very little. With the women spokesmen, there was reasoning between the two sides. We identified crucial areas and discussed them at a time of day when we were not exhausted. The influx of more than 100 women Members of Parliament will change this place utterly.
We take great pride in the mother of Parliaments but, as many hon. Members have said, Parliament's image outside is quite different. People regard the mother of Parliaments as becoming debauched by corruption, which is greatly exaggerated, and growing a little senile. We must look to those barriers and to our understanding of the work of this place.
The reason for early-day motion No. 5, which suggested something entirely new, is that hon. Members with declarable financial interests should not serve on Committees that cover that area. There is a good reason for that. If we look critically at how Select Committees have worked, many, such as the one mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the distinguished Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, have served us extremely well.
Others have not. They have divided regularly on party political lines in every report. Their reports do not have the respect of the House or the country. Others have divided on vested interests. I shall not mention those vested interests but, if half the Committee has financial interests in MegaGreed plc and the other half has vested

interests in the Coathangers Union, the two sides clash and objective reasoning has no chance of dominating and determining the outcome of the Committee. It just depends on the strength of the two vested interests.
In this brief contribution, I shall point to some of the ways in which I think we should go forward. Some have been mentioned, and I will not repeat them.
We must look critically at the work of all the Select Committees. Often, they under-achieve. Our cross-examination of witnesses is not as professional and as hard as it should be. For a great deal of time, we are not doing detailed work on the Committee. Select Committees are often dominated by advisers and others, rather than by Members. There is a huge area in which that valuable work can be enlarged.
The Standing Committees are an ossified foolishness. I was delighted by what the hon. Member for Wantage said. We must look at them in a new way. I went through those two Committee reports in great detail with a person who wrote a book about the way in which we run our Committees.
I do not think that anyone now admits to serving on the Committee that considered the Bill establishing the Child Support Agency, because of the results of it. The problem was not that members of the Committee did not foresee difficulties arising from that legislation, but that they focused on the wrong ones—on problems that did materialise, but the enormous problems that emerged were not considered by the Committee.
We must re-examine that and various other Bills. We have all experienced the terrible frustration of serving on Committees, tabling amendments, arguing for hour after hour and finding nothing was accepted.

Mr. Robert Jackson: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the case of the Child Support Agency, and he referred to it earlier in an intervention as an example of confrontation. I, too, looked at the proceedings because, like everyone else, I have been struck by the amazing number of complaints that have been generated. Actually, it was an extremely consensual process in the Standing Committee. That is a jolly good example of the way in which the consensual process can go wrong, but the real moral of that story is that the Bill should have been put through a process of examination by experts and discussion with witnesses. That would have produced the kind of evidence that would have enabled a serious discussion to take place in Standing Committee.

Mr. Flynn: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that the matter should have been approached in a different way.
I shall make two final points, as I know that many other hon. Members want to speak. We must enlarge the great work carried out by the Public Accounts Committee. It does a marvellous job, but covers only a tiny part—perhaps one seventieth—of the work that should be covered. Rather than a sub-committee structure, I would prefer a subject-matter structure. There are enormous opportunities for Back Benchers to do serious, worthwhile work.
We must rediscover the traditional role of Back Benchers—the Sydney Silvermans, the Leo Abses—who challenged conventional bigotry and ignorance. We have seen the tabloidisation of politics, where political parties


have been far too interested in pleasing the writers of editorials in the Daily Mirror and the Daily Mail, instead of creating genuinely innovative policies. Those policies will come from the Back Benches. We must rediscover that role by allowing genuine chances for Back Benchers to get their own legislation through.
I am sure that this will be a great Parliament—a Parliament different from any in our history, that will achieve great reforms. We must ensure that by reinforcing the role of the Back Benchers and by blazing new trails.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I should like to recommend some practical ideas to the Leader of the House from the perspective especially of newcomers to the House. We can all remember when we were newcomers. I should like her to pay particular attention to some kind of induction course or training course for newcomers. Many new Members wander round this place for months, if not years, not knowing what goes on and not understanding the jargon used in the Chamber.
This evening, for example, SO 20s were mentioned by a distinguished Member, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who has been here many years and has, no doubt, introduced many SO 20s, whatever they are—I do not know what they are, even now. It would be enormously helpful for new Members to understand such things.
Many hon. Members do not even understand how to gets their name called in the Chamber. Some who may not have been paying a great deal of attention to the debate but perhaps watching the Chair may have seen me sidle up to the Speaker a little while ago. I was trying to discover whether it was worth my while staying in the Chamber till the end of this extremely interesting debate and whether I was likely to be called. Madam Speaker rightly pointed out to me that I had not submitted my name in advance.

Madam Speaker: Then Madam Speaker said, "Go and sit down and wait your turn."

Mrs. Gorman: Madam Speaker was quite correct—I was about to come to that point. New Members of Parliament may not know that: they may sit in their places for many hours without being called because they are not aware of that simple protocol.
As the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said, newcomers have a great deal to contribute to Parliament, but preference is given to seniority in debates, so new Members may not be called to speak. I remember sitting through five days of Budget debate without being called. That was very frustrating. Although it is natural that seniority should command respect, I have pointed out to the Speaker that Privy Councillors and Chairmen of Committees are called to speak in the House more often, which means that Back Benchers have fewer opportunities to speak. Madam Speaker referred me to the Leader of the House—then Tony Newton—who assured me that he did not necessarily want senior Members of Parliament to have special privileges. There was some difference of opinion about the issue.
New Members of Parliament do not know about those little dodges. In my house, I have a very helpful booklet on "household tips and wrinkles". I think that a House of Commons book of "tips and wrinkles" might help many newcomers.
I nipped out of the Chamber a little while ago. When I popped back in, I saw that Madam Speaker had noted my absence. I do not know why she thought I left the Chamber, but I went to get a list of Members. I knew that, if I were called to speak, I might want to refer to an hon. Member in the Chamber and it is the tradition to refer to hon. Members by their constituencies. The Leader of the House raised that issue briefly, and I have great sympathy for her point of view.
Although I know the name of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, I am not allowed to call him by name; I must refer to his constituency. I know that there are good reasons for that practice, but it causes confusion for hon. Members who wish to speak spontaneously while referring to other hon. Members and addressing their points of view. I urge the right hon. Lady not to be dissuaded from examining that matter. When there are many Members of Parliament, not just new Members but long-standing Members can take a long time to learn all the constituency names.
The Prime Minister said that Members of Parliament are the servants, not the masters, of the people. There is a tendency for hon. Members to employ friends or family members in their offices. When considering disposing of their office allowances, hon. Members should bear in mind that their decision may cause comment. Remarks have been made in the past about nepotism in the system, which may be inappropriate and is sometimes picked up by our electors.
Nepotism is a disease that goes hand in hand with privilege. There was a classic local council case recently—in Monklands—when 32 members of the same family were employed by that council. That example was raised many times in the House. I would prefer to see Parliament not choosing the individuals, but arranging for secretaries and other staff and allotting their salaries. That would alleviate any charges of nepotism, in which hon. Members have the opportunity to indulge in this place.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: In a sense, the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) gave the message away. It was apparent that she was keen to enter the Chamber to speak, but not to listen. That is one of the fundamental problems in this place. Too many hon. Members want to make their speeches but not to listen to others. If that is all that we want to do, why do we not all line up and make our speeches simultaneously? It is crucial that we listen to other hon. Members' speeches. It was a privilege to be in the Chamber to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey). She made an excellent speech and I look forward to hearing her on many more occasions.
I wish that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had started her speech by placing rather more emphasis on good scrutiny of legislation. There are some who suspect that the Government want to get their business through more quickly than has happened hitherto. If we are to have better scrutiny, it must be accepted that that will make life harder for Ministers, and especially hard for Government Whips. The long-term gain will be evident a considerable time later when we are seen to put better legislation on the statute book and conduct better government.
I press it upon my right hon. Friend that, when we change our formal procedures, we must also consider the informal. No doubt most people will judge the changes to


Prime Minister's Question Time by what happens in the Chamber. I suggest that we should consider also what happens outside. Does the change to Prime Minister's questions means that fewer Ministers will come to the House on Tuesdays and Thursdays so that they might be lobbied by their colleagues and others? Let us balance the formal by considering also the informal.
I shall present briefly a shopping list of the things that I would like at least to be considered. First, there are constitutional matters. It is a bit of a cheek for the Opposition to get hot and bothered about constitutional matters being taken on the Floor of the House after they, while in government, pushed through the poll tax, which in many ways denied many people their right to vote. That legislation was, of course, considered in Committee.
If the Opposition want constitutional matters to be considered on the Floor of the House, it would be sensible to consider sitting on Tuesday and Thursday mornings. The Wednesday experiment has proved that that can be done. The argument against Wednesday sittings was that we might have votes, which would make life difficult for Ministers and for part-time Members. Probably even the Conservative party cannot afford now to have part-timers. I think that almost all my right hon. and hon. Friends gave a clear commitment during the election campaign that they would be full-time Members.
We can make use of the mornings and I think that we can have Divisions during those sittings. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said that one concession reached in establishing Wednesday morning sittings was that Back-Bench Members would not move motions. I think that that right should be restored at the earliest opportunity so that we can have the ensuing debates on a Wednesday morning or at some other time.
It is important that there is interchange during debates on the Floor of the House. If there is to be an interchange, there must be interventions. I approve of the 10-minute rule, which is designed to reduce the length of speeches, but I plead with you, Madam Speaker, to consider whether we can have injury time for interventions. That allowance was recommended by the Procedure Committee. It would bring back the idea of debate and make it clear that we do not just sit in our places doing nothing but can be involved in interruptions that are of some use.
It is important that we establish some ad hoc Select Committees. I plead for some regional Select Committees. We shall be giving new powers to regional Assemblies in Scotland and Wales, and surely the English regions have rights as well. The establishment of Select Committees to reflect the English regions would be extremely useful.
I hope that there will be many more opportunities to scrutinise proposed legislation. It is important that a Select Committee should be able to examine a Bill before its parliamentary passage begins. Consideration on Report has become a farce. There is a mixture of major issues and detailed Government amendments. Those amendments should be considered on recommittal.
A substantial agenda needs to be considered. I hope that the House will act quickly in setting up the proposed Committee. I hope also that the Committee will work quickly and that, by this time next year, we shall see the fruits of its labour.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Owing to your good offices, Madam Speaker, and that of the Leader of the House and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), it has been decided that there will not be winding-up speeches from Front Benchers—rather, that two Back Benchers will have the opportunity to say a few words. I hope that that is a happy precedent.
I add my tributes to those already paid to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey), who made a most eloquent and interesting contribution. I could not pretend to agree with everything that she said, and I would just urge a little caution in wanting to change too much too quickly, but by the same token it is helpful for those of us who have been here a long time to hear the perceptive comments of a highly intelligent newcomer who has obviously taken a lot of trouble to try to size the place up. I am sure that we will hear much more from her. It would be admirable if she, or one or two newer Members, had the opportunity to participate in the Committee that the House will shortly set up.
The Leader of the House is, perhaps, braver than she realises, because at the heart of the debate is the classic dichotomy: we do not have a separation of powers. Many of the Parliaments to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) referred in his interesting speech have a separation of powers, where the Executive is not drawn from the legislature. I know that there are some that do not—

Sir Patrick Cormack: Briefly.

Mr. Jackson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, but that simply is not the case. He is thinking of the United States, but the Federal Republic of Germany, a number of continental countries and Commonwealth countries have systems very similar to ours, and their Parliaments operate more effectively, I believe, because they are committee-based, in the way that I suggested

Sir Patrick Cormack: Yes, indeed. There are some Parliaments like ours, but equally there are a number that have a separation of powers. It is not just the United States where that exists.
When I talk about the essential dichotomy, I mean that the right hon. Lady, in her capacity as a leading Member of the Government, is understandably anxious to get Government business through—she is anxious that there should be many Bills, to which Labour referred in its election manifesto and to which it feels morally committed—but to get business through and to have it properly scrutinised, which is the keynote in this debate, is a problem.
The right hon. Lady has the luxury of an enormous majority. Many hon. Members who have come into the House for the first time will not have the opportunity in the lifetime of this Parliament to have Government office, or even properly to aspire to it. We should remember that being in the House is itself sufficient of a challenge and reward. It is a great pity to come into the House with a mental picture of a chauffeur-driven Montego, a Dispatch Box, or whatever.


For us to be here, to take part in the debates, to scrutinise and to subject the Government to detailed examination is in itself a great task. That is why our constituents have sent us here. We should seek so to change our procedures that it is easier properly to scrutinise the legislation that the Government produce. That is the object of Parliament. Parliament does not govern; it scrutinises legislation.
I warmly welcome everything that the right hon. Lady said about Special Standing Committees and the opportunity to see draft legislation. In an earlier intervention, when she was gracious enough to give way, I referred to my experience as a Chairman of Committees. I have had the honour of chairing many Standing Committees. It is a fascinating task and one that I greatly enjoy, but I am bound to say that I frequently sit in the Chair and feel very frustrated indeed. As was rightly said, the Chairman can play no part in the deliberations. He just sits there and is all too conscious that, time after time, almost no Government Back Bencher gets up and says anything at all.
That is not a criticism of my party, so recently in government. I was here in 1970. I sat on Committees when my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)—the Father of the House—Lord Wilson and Lord Callaghan were Prime Ministers, and it was always the same. The Government were so anxious to get their legislation through that the Whips told the Government Back Benchers on Committees that their job was to keep their heads down. Only occasionally is there a Committee where that is not the norm.
I hope that the new procedural Committee which is to be set up will look with enormous care and diligence at how we can so timetable Bills as to change that system. Every Government Back Bencher in this Parliament who is appointed to a Committee should feel free to take part in debates. The luxury of the Labour party's large majority should allow the Leader of the House and her colleagues in the Whips Office to be rather more flexible and to allow a little dissent. There is nothing healthier than dissent. Infallibility is not automatically conferred on Governments.
I have frequently, and to my cost, because I have never made a speech from either Dispatch Box, sought to take issue with my Government. The poll tax legislation has been referred to during the evening. I did not cast one vote in its favour. Indeed, I voted against it on every conceivable occasion.

Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Patrick Cormack: No, I am sorry, I do not have much time.
I hope that Government Back Benchers will take that as an example and feel free properly to scrutinise and criticise the legislation before them.
Select Committees do extremely valuable work, but it would be enormously to the advantage of Parliament if every major Select Committee report had to be at least briefly debated on the Floor during a parliamentary year. Great work is put into those Committees. Sometimes their findings are of enormous importance, yet the rest of the House has little or no opportunity to deliberate on their findings. We should consider setting aside more days to debate Select Committee reports. If that restricts the amount of legislation, that in itself would be a good thing,

because too much legislation inevitably means that there is sloppily drafted legislation and more danger of bad legislation.
I should like to think that, in our joint desire to see the Chamber more populated more often, we might consider so organising the Committee system that we have perhaps one day when Committees have priority and the Chamber meets just briefly in the afternoon. That might free hon. Members to be in the Chamber more on other occasions. This should be the of the nation, where hon. Members feel that they have a prime duty to be in attendance.
I was much taken by the excellent speech of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, when he talked about the count. Perhaps that is something that we should consider bringing back. We should also consider stricter enforcement of the convention of a discipline whereby, if an hon. Member is to take part in a debate, he or she is present virtually throughout it. That would help enormously because it would encourage true debating. Hon. Members would be here, they would listen and they would be able to take part. I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman's point about injury time, because the cut and thrust of debate is of its very essence.
I am conscious that I must give the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) at least as much time as I have had, so I conclude by saying that I hope that the Leader of the House will give careful thought to the structure not only of the parliamentary week but of the parliamentary year. I realise that it would probably be difficult to effect much of a change this year, but I hope that next year there will be change. I hope that, in the autumn, the right hon. Lady will, in effect, give us a parliamentary calendar for the year.
Of course, it would have to be subject to change in an emergency. During the time I have been in the House, Parliament has been recalled several times. It is absolutely right that it should be recalled on occasions such as the Gulf war, the Falklands conflict and major crises in Northern Ireland. Every Government must have the right to do that, but I should like a more structured parliamentary year.
We have heard some excellent contributions in this debate, especially from such experienced and eloquent Members as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery). I hope that new Members who have been present will feel that this place is a worthwhile institution. We must all play our part in seeking to improve its procedures. Making haste slowly although determinedly—we should be determined to make the place better—should perhaps be our motto, rather than rushing into reforms that we later have cause to regret.

Mr. Clive Soley: This Parliament has a wonderful window of opportunity radically to reform the House of Commons—something for which many of us have fought for, year after year. We start from the position that the House of Commons, throughout the centuries, has been the model for Parliaments around the world, yet, sadly and tragically, in the past 80 years or so we have reformed it too little and


too late. Now we have another opportunity. What encourages me so much is not only the way in which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House addresses this issue, but the contributions that we have heard from both sides of the House. Radically important contributions have been made.

Mr. Maxton: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Soley: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall not give way, because I have only 10 minutes and I want to make some important points. I think that he will support me, but if he feels desperately about anything I say, I shall let him intervene. Please give me time to make my points.

Mr. Maxton: I find it depressing.

Mr. Soley: Well, let me just say this. We all agree that there should be more evidence taking in the Committee system. The Special Standing Committee procedure was established in 1980, but it was used only seven times up till 1996. That is tragic. It has been mentioned a number of times, because the poll tax and the Child Support Agency would not have seen the light of day if those Committees had taken evidence from outside.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) made a wonderful speech, befitting a scientist. It was full of light and reason, although I warn her that, from my experience, light and reason do not necessarily advance one's political career. Indeed, I sometimes think that a working definition of political activity is anything that defies reason and logic. What she said was very important. Like so many of us, she picked up the point that taking evidence first improves the legislation that comes out at the end.
I want to mention two committees that were held in the House but were outside the parliamentary structure: the press committee, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) chaired for me, and the committee on the family, which was held during the United Nations Year of the Family. Both of those committees took evidence from people outside. Although they had no formal existence in the House of Commons, over and again they attracted coverage on the television and radio news and in the press. I had masses of letters from people saying, "Why can't Parliament do this more often?"
We must find a way for Back Benchers to set up such committees. They have a limited, finite life and can consider particular areas of policy. They can examine contentious areas that Government and Opposition parties are afraid to consider. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) knows exactly what I mean. We are reluctant to examine certain subjects, such as drugs and the royal family, because of our fear of the treatment that they are given in the tabloid press. We are even reluctant to deal with issues of the family. Would it not be nice if, at the same time as we considered the family, we took the advice that we give to people outside and introduced some family-friendly policies into House of Commons procedures?
There are many issues in which we can involve Back Benchers directly by means of the Committee structure. We have done that in the past; it is not as though it is a

new idea. I make no excuse for using again an example that I have used many times before, which is in Hansard. In 1833, there were riots in Clerkenwell. On 11 July 1833, the House of Commons ordered
That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Conduct of the Metropolitan Police on the 13th May last, in dispersing a Public Meeting in Cold Bath Fields".
One police officer had been killed. If we carried out a study like that, there would be headlines in the tabloid press about Members of Parliament attacking the police. The Committee reported in August of that year, after taking evidence outside. One of its recommendations was that the police should never act as agents provocateurs. All the recommendations were implemented.
When we had riots in 1981, Lord Scarman—for whom I have great admiration—spent some years on a procedure that involved taking evidence and reporting to the House. We still have not acted on many of those recommendations. It is nonsense that we were doing it better in 1833. We could be proud of our procedure then. Indeed, people around the world were copying it, saying, "What a good idea. Let us do the same." If that could be done in 1833, we could do it now.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said that we had lost something, and that is what we have lost. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) hit the nail on the head: we need to give Back Benchers more power, more influence and more independence.
There is, however, a problem for both Government and Opposition. The Government's job is to get their legislation through. What we must do, within the culture of the House, is recognise that, as Back Benchers, we must allow Governments to get their legislation through; but Governments must allow Back Benchers much more say on the variation of legislation. That is why evidence taking is so important, as is the ability to participate in the Committee structure. I was attracted by some of the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who made an important contribution to the debate.
We must approach the media differently. The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) spoke about a dedicated parliamentary television channel. I have no problem with that, but we need to do something much more important: we need to allow television and radio to be involved in our activities far more easily.
When I set up my two committees, one on the press and one on the family, there were only two or three Committee Rooms in which I could put television equipment. It is absurd that a Member of Parliament who wants to film a meeting cannot do so in the vast majority of Rooms in the House. Surely, if the hon. Members who are present want the meeting to be televised, it should be, but our funny rules and regulations make it very difficult for the media to report what we are doing effectively. Although we rightly complain at times about the way in which the media report us, we make it difficult for them. Let us open up the whole media debate, and be more realistic.
I also think that we should look again at the Representation of the People Act 1989. There is a good deal of evidence to show that the way in which it works is not allowing good coverage of elections, as we saw very dramatically at the last general election. That, however, is a wider issue, which I will not deal with now.
The facilities in the House are inadequate. New Members know that better than others, but we all knew it when we were first elected. I could speak about that at some length if I had time.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was also right about time in the House, but if we are to give people time here—if we are to get people back in here—one of the things that we must do, as Members of Parliament, is stop acting so much like rather big councillors. That means devolving power to regional government. It would mean that we could start being Members of Parliament and might even look at the heretical matter of reducing the number of Members of Parliament. We need to do that, and if the number were reduced, hon. Members would get more than about four chances a year of catching the Speaker's eye in a major debate.
This splendid debate presents an enormous opportunity. I ask the House, I almost plead with it, to look at these proposed reforms, so that, 10, 20 or 50 years from now, we shall be able to look back and say, "Yes, I was part of the Parliament that reformed the British House of Commons and brought it back into the forefront of parliamentary democracy."

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — BSE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

10 pm

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am glad to have this opportunity of an early debate on the BSE crisis. I congratulate the Minister, who has already been in action responding to a debate, on his appointment. He represents an urban constituency, and may not recently have had to deal at first hand with agricultural issues on behalf of his constituents. However, he is fair-minded and intelligent, and the lack of farms in Perry Barr should in no way prevent him from being an effective Minister in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I am sure that the Minister does not need me to tell him that the dominating issue in his in-tray is the crisis in the beef industry arising from the continuing export ban. My constituency has almost certainly the biggest concentration of beef producer interests in the United Kingdom. Apart from specialist beef production on farms, there are three abattoirs, two cattle marts, a wide variety of meat processors, specialist transport companies and other ancillary trades. My newly elected hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) has similar concerns for the industry in his constituency, which directly adjoins mine.
Some people have made money out of the crisis and from the substantial amounts of financial support that have been injected into managing the problem. The trouble is that others have suffered substantial losses, and many have received no compensation whatever. The Minister will appreciate that there is deep and widespread anxiety about the future. There is also anger in some quarters about the fact that people have been left to struggle on alone.
Beef finishers are currently losing money. They face prices that are at 1982 levels, and many are selling cattle for less than the price at which they bought them in. That is clearly unsustainable. If the situation continues for much longer, it will bode ill for the autumn cattle sales and the future of hill farmers, who depend on them for their very existence.
Against that background, it is hardly surprising that there is widespread anger at the scale of foreign imports from sources that do not have the UK's rigorous safety controls, which only last week were acknowledged by the European Commission as providing the highest standards anywhere.
The latest figures that I have obtained show that, for January and February, imports totalled 19,770 tonnes, which is 47 per cent. more than for the same period last year. The largest proportion of those imports came from the Irish Republic, but a great deal also came from non-EU countries, and especially south America. None of those countries applies the rigorous standards that are now required in British abattoirs.

Sir Robert Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for associating the concerns in his constituency with those in mine. Several farmers came to my last surgery and raised the worry of the lack of a level playing field in the context of imported and domestic beef. At Prime Minister's Question Time,


my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who is the leader of the Liberal Democrats in Scotland, raised that issue, but he did not get an answer. I hope that, at the end of this debate, we shall get a satisfactory reply.

Mr. Bruce: It is a matter which, as I am sure the Minister is already aware, causes a great deal of emotional heat.
I welcome the Government's announcement that they will close down abattoirs which do not meet the required standards. That is further evidence of their determination to eliminate any risk of contaminated meat entering the food chain.
At the same time as we have introduced high standards, the incidence of BSE in farms in the United Kingdom has fallen rapidly. Last year's total was slightly more than 20 per cent. of the total in the peak year of 1992. This year, the total has fallen sharply, to less than 5 per cent. of the worst year on an annualised rate. Particularly welcome to me is the fall in Scotland, which seems likely to have well below 100 cases this year, compared with the peak of 2,208 in 1993.
The fall in the incidence of BSE has taken place at a time of worrying signs that the number of cases occurring outside the United Kingdom may be on the increase. I note that the Minister told Farmers Weekly that, to insist that other EU member states applied British controls and banned imports that did not meet the same standards might be counter-productive. I understand that argument, but he must recognise that British producers cannot expect to be left in the maelstrom of collapsed prices and soaring imports without direct assistance or a timetable for the lifting of the export ban.
It is not tenable for the EU to talk of a single European market and a common agricultural policy when one large member state is effectively excluded from both. I know that that is uncomfortable to many who work at the European Commission, and we must help to secure the framework for lifting the ban, and help our beef producers to stay in business in the mean time.
In the 14 months since the ban was imposed, an enormous amount of time and momentum has been wasted or lost. I certainly do not blame the Minister for that. The selective cull, delayed six months, is still barely under way. We must complete it on terms compatible with the Florence agreement as quickly as possible. I know that the Minister agrees with that.
If the certified herd scheme is to go ahead, it must be on terms that are not prejudicial to Great Britain producers. If we had set in motion a computerised database at the start of the crisis, we would be well on the way to achieving the full traceability scheme that the industry wants. The only way to recover that waste of time seems to be to set a cut-off birth date, after which cattle will be eligible for export. I am pleased to note that the Government are considering that.
The measures that I have mentioned are essential to bring forward the earliest date on which the ban may be lifted, and make it possible to announce the dates soon. Nothing less than the lifting of the ban will restore full confidence by establishing a genuine open market; but meanwhile, a number of measures are necessary to

provide short-term support before too many producers are swept away, or forced to abandon beef, with consequences for other sectors. Falling grain prices show that farmers who have the option to switch from stock to arable may not necessarily improve their situation by so doing.
Farmers in my area tell me that the priority for any additional money should be promotion of the quality and safety of British beef in general, and of Scottish beef in particular. That should be reinforced by a "Buy British" campaign, starting with the Government. I find it astonishing that the Ministry of Defence continues to import South American beef when we have a surplus of premium quality beef at home. All other major beef users, including McDonald's and Burger King, must be encouraged to buy British beef, which goes through more rigorous safety controls than the imported beef that they prefer.
The Government should reinforce such a campaign by encouraging a labelling scheme to enable consumers to know the origin of the beef they are buying. Perhaps the Government should also consider a voucher scheme such as we have had before to promote beef consumption among lower income groups who currently cannot afford it.
The tendency of British beef farmers to producer heavier and fatter cattle disadvantages us on intervention buying. The 360 kg cut-off is unfair to Britain and Ireland and the restriction to class 3 disadvantages Scottish producers, who have a higher proportion of class 4L beef—about 50 per cent. of the total. We obtained a dispensation on that last year, and I ask the Minister to press for a repeat as a matter of urgency, because the peak sales time is now, and farms face the double whammy of depressed prices and exclusion from intervention.
It has also been suggested to me that the intervention policy should be more imaginative. Buying into intervention some of the cheaper cuts, not just the best, might help to reduce the retail price of the best cuts and so boost consumer demand. Let us not forget all those forequarters that we do not know what to do with.
A number of other measures should be considered. The second payment for the beef special premium scheme is scheduled too late. Could it not be paid at slaughter, or brought forward to perhaps 18 months? The previous Government initiated the cut in compensation payments for over-30-month-scheme cattle from 1 ecu to 0.9 ecu, but they did so when the price for a cast cow was between £800 and £1,000, and not the prevailing price of £400. Will the Government press for its restoration?
Farmers have suffered all those difficulties and the added problem of a rising pound. Ireland has sought compensation for the green pound effect with payments of £91 million and £26 million. Should not the British Government follow a similar route?
Of course, those are all palliatives to make up for the impact of the ban. The only way in which confidence will be restored is when the ban is lifted. That must be the Government's overriding priority.
I have talked almost entirely about farmers, but other sectors of the beef trade have been hard hit. Their plight should not continue to be overlooked by this Government as it was by the previous one.
Specialist producers have been devastated. The company Donald Russell in my constituency supplies literally the best beef that one can buy anywhere in the


world. That is not just my view, but it was its customers' view until the ban was imposed. It was almost entirely export-oriented, and its market disappeared overnight. That superb producer of quality meat is only ticking over now, on much reduced turnover and margins. That company and others deserve compensation for stock losses, and they should be given the opportunity to get back into the market.
Head deboners were closed down on Government orders, issued overnight by fax, after they had been required to make considerable investment in new equipment to meet Government safety standards. Surely they should be compensated at least for the investment that they had to make on Government instruction. That investment was mostly financed by borrowing that could never be serviced once those firms were closed down by the same Government.
Specialist transport contractors are still hurting. They were deprived of their principal activity of taking beef to continental Europe, and many suffered immediate losses. They and others were forced to sell expensive rigs at a loss, and were unable to diversify in an increasingly competitive market. Many drivers have been laid off, and some companies have gone bust.
The Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland has carried out a survey of hauliers in Scotland, which showed that there has been an average 42 per cent. drop in trade since the ban. The federation has pointed out that that drop ranges from 10 per cent. to 100 per cent. I do not need to tell the Minister that 100 per cent. means that someone ain't in business any more.
I have talked to a number of hauliers, not only in my constituency but elsewhere. They are so angry that they are considering organising land blockades of major roads to draw attention to their plight. I hope that the Minister will appreciate that I have urged them to give the Government a chance to listen, and I hope to respond to their plight before they take any precipitate action. I urge the Government to consider some avenue of compensation at least for the loss of their expensive specialist equipment.
I know that the Minister may say that I have offered a long list of the measures that could help. In my original draft speech, I mentioned that £1,000 million had already been spent on compensation. I see from the Minister's letter, which was circulated to Members today, that £1,500 million has already been spent on compensation and intervention. Billions more pounds have been committed. Given those figures, it is clear that some people have done extremely well. To me that proves that it is an ill wind that blows nobody any good.
I urge the Minister to consider a review of how the money is spent in future, so that he might be able to provide compensation to people who have had none—without any extra cost to the taxpayer—by reassessing the way it is calculated, so that it is fairer and based on a assessment of real need and actual loss. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand how angry people feel when they see their businesses disappearing under them, while other people make a fortune at the taxpayers' expense and through no particular merit of their own.
An early lifting of the ban is the overriding priority, and a firm date for that is essential. I understand the Government's determination to secure that end by engaging in constructive dialogue with our European

partners on the Commission. I assure the Minister that in that venture he will have full co-operation and support from these Benches. Indeed, we are well aware that many people on the Commission are as anxious as we are that the matter is resolved. What they have not had is any constructive initiative from the British Government over the past 14 months. A new Government and a new Minister have an opportunity to turn the matter around.
In the meantime, I hope that the Minister understands that at least some of the measures that I have outlined must be put in place soon, or there will be no significant beef industry left. The quality product that my constituency produces—and I do not exaggerate—may never return to the best plates on the best tables in the world.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on securing this debate. Within a few hours of my appointment and my walking into the Department, I told my advisers that, when the House reassembled, BSE would be a top priority. Given the Adjournment debate prospects both on Wednesday mornings and at other times during the week, I would have been astonished if there had not been a brief debate on BSE.
I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on a measured speech. If I cannot respond now to all the points he made, I shall do my best to cover them in correspondence.
I thank him sincerely for his kind remarks about me. It is true that I do not have an agricultural background, and that my constituents are not exactly versed in the ways of agriculture. However, everyone is a consumer. One does not need to be an expert in agricultural technology and procedures to understand that there has been a massive crisis of confidence in British food, not just beef.
That has had catastrophic implications for job prospects for many people who would not usually be associated with enterprise, including lorry drivers and shopkeepers. Therefore, I make no apology—nor does my right hon. Friend the Minister—for Members of Parliament who represent urban constituencies taking a broader view. Their constituency interests are the same as those of everyone else—safer food for all our people, and a restoration of confidence in our food production system.
As the hon. Gentleman mentioned—it shows how efficient the system is—my right hon. Friend the Minister has today written to all right hon. and hon. Members telling them about our plans for BSE. It was important to do that, as we are about to start a short recess. I am pleased to have this opportunity to emphasise some of the points made by my right hon. Friend. I shall come in a minute to aspects of the ban mentioned by the hon. Member for Gordon.
The BSE inheritance is not a happy one. We inherited concerns about public health, a loss of confidence in beef, lingering animal health problems, a battered British beef industry, stores stacked high with cattle remains, a colossal bill for the taxpayer—which is rising daily—and antagonised, deeply suspicious, European partners. There are also a great many angry farmers. If I were a farmer, I would be angry, too.
We also inherited Administration failures. The previous Administration failed to enforce the rules properly, such as the offal controls in abattoirs to protect the public,


and the controls on animal feed to eradicate BSE. They had a failed policy of non-co-operation in Europe. That did not bring any benefits to this country. They failed to deliver on their promise to get the beef ban lifted by last November.
The previous Government failed to get cracking with the selective cull. I was astonished at what I found when, within a day of coming to the Ministry, I asked about the figures on what had happened in the six weeks of the general election campaign, when there were still Ministers around who could have been asking questions and pressing ahead. The previous Government failed to reassure consumers. We have inherited a catalogue of failure, and much needs to be done.
I can assure the House that we shall do everything in our power to turn things around. We must have a safer food policy. We must make the point that our policing of the beef production system is second to none in Europe. We produce the finest and safest quality beef anywhere in Europe. That point must be repeated to our partners.
We also have to regain the trust of customers—a key way in which we shall do so is to set up a food standards agency. There has to be an independent element to help to restore confidence. We are consulting on that, and we hope to produce a draft Bill this Session for introduction in the next Session. Meanwhile, there is much that we can do to turn matters around.
We shall rebuild bridges across Europe—that process has already been begun by my right hon. Friends in the Cabinet, including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We shall seek to restore hope to a battered industry. We shall work tirelessly to get the export ban lifted, although that will not be done overnight. Our action will consist not of one single measure, but of a range of measures. We shall continue to give more impetus to the selective cull. We shall move rapidly to create a computerised cattle tracking system.
Those are the Government's challenges and priorities. They will be my personal priorities, as well as those of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—and for which we shall account to the House.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I entirely endorse everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said, and I echo his congratulations to the Minister on his appointment. We have high hopes for tackling this difficult problem with a fresh brain and a fresh start. In underlining what my hon. Friend said, may I ask the Minister to address the following point about imports? It is not just unfair to British producers to have imports of lower standards into this country: it is unfair to the British consumer, who is being given many products that are not up to the standards on which the Government and the European Commission insist.

Mr. Rooker: That is clearly the case, and there will be an appropriate moment to reinforce that point.
The incidence of BSE is in strong decline in the United Kingdom today. That is largely attributable to the measures taken in 1988 to ban the feeding of cattle remains back to cattle. But since that time, there have been more than 30,000 cases of BSE in cattle born after

that ban, which proves that it was not properly enforced, and that there was a lack of action on the part of the previous Government.
Controls have been progressively tightened since then. We now have a complete ban on the use of meat and bonemeal in any farm animal feed or fertiliser. We shall ensure that existing controls continue to be properly and rigorously enforced.
Scientists predict that BSE will fall to a low level by the year 2001. We intend to ensure that action is taken to eradicate BSE in the United Kingdom as quickly as possible. Meanwhile, we shall apply a high level of precaution in line with the scientific advice available—we shall operate a safety first policy. That is the only way to encourage the return of confidence.
The Government's priority is to ensure the highest standards of food safety. Having received Professor James's report, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 8 May—one week after coming to office—the Government's plans to set up a food standards agency. Until then, the handling of food safety matters will remain with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which will work in close contact with the Department of Health and the other agricultural Departments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The handling of food safety matters will be on a new and much more open footing. Our watchwords will be openness and accountability to the House and people outside. There will be no secret reports and no secret meetings; we shall disclose everything that comes our way from the scientists and, within the bounds of commercial confidentiality, we shall be as open as we can when answering parliamentary questions.
We shall base our actions on the best scientific advice. We shall continue to look to the independent scientific advisory committee, the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee—SEAC—for that advice. The committee meets regularly; it keeps the evidence on BSE and the new variant of CJD under constant review, as well as checking that controls are in place to protect public health. We will act promptly on SEAC recommendations, as and when they come to us—there will be no delay.
I turn now to the export ban on beef and beef products. We intend to press, and are pressing, for the earliest possible lifting of the ban. My right hon. Friend the Minister has spent two days in Europe and Brussels this week meeting not only Commissioners but members of the European Parliament—something our predecessors in office flatly refused to do, thus creating enormous ill will against our country, and undermining the efforts of our industry and the people who work in it to rebuild confidence. We intend to press for the earliest possible lifting of the ban, but it will not be easy, given the position that we have inherited.
The Government do not want to raise false hopes. Since taking office, we have discovered that it was never credible to pretend that the ban could be lifted by November 1996, as the former Prime Minister told the House. When serving as shadow deputy Leader of the House, I was present during nearly all the statements that were made on this subject, and having asked the questions and received answers and advice from inside the Department that we could not necessarily have got while in Opposition, that is what we have discovered.
We intend to respect the Florence agreement—we have no choice about that. We will work constructively with the Commission and other member states on how best to make progress under that agreement. My right hon. Friend the Minister has already initiated action with Commissioners Fischler and Bonino on that matter.
The Florence agreement set out five preconditions for the UK to meet before the ban can be lifted. Action is in hand on all five, and it is being checked on and chased up daily—sometimes hourly. However, delays have occurred with the selective cull, so we are making it a priority to speed up its operation. We have invited the Commissioners to send further missions here if any other issues are causing them concern.
We are also keen to pursue the steps set down in Florence for the progressive lifting of the ban. The Commission knows that we want to press ahead with the export-certified herd scheme, which our predecessors tabled. Mrs. Bonino has been very helpful in arranging for that proposal to be examined by the appropriate European Union scientific committees. Their scrutiny should be completed next month, and we look forward with interest to the outcome.
The Florence agreement also provides a basis for us to table further proposals, and I can assure hon. Members that we are giving active thought to the best way of doing so. Our aim is to maximise the possibilities of an early resumption of exports, to the ultimate benefit of all parts of the United Kingdom. We are the Government of the United Kingdom, and are working to serve all parts of the United Kingdom. We shall therefore table further proposals when we judge it would be fruitful and in the interests of the United Kingdom to do so.
In the meantime, we shall continue to pursue the challenge to the legality of the ban through the European Court of Justice. There is no sense in not pursuing that case, because we do not concede the legality of the ban. I understand that a hearing date has been set for 2 July. In addition, we shall adopt a much more positive and open approach to the European Parliament's temporary committee of inquiry. The committee was, of course, highly critical of the previous Government.
British beef will be exported only when consumers throughout Europe are convinced that it is not only of the highest quality, but as safe as beef from anywhere else in the European Union. We would submit that, because of all the checks and controls that we have implemented, it is safer than beef from anywhere else in the European Union; but, because of the scares based on false premises, we have to reassure our European partners, their consumers and their constituents that that is true.
The Florence agreement, which was heralded with much acclaim last year, provides a framework, but no more. It will clearly require a good deal of hard work to win back the trade. We have made a start on the process, but much remains to be done if we are to repair the damage. We will need to carry the whole House with us on this issue. Real progress depends on restoring confidence in British beef, and that will come about only by allowing measured consideration by experts, not by trying to bludgeon our beef back on to European dinner tables.
Starting a trade war will not help. I understand hon. Members' feelings, and I have received urgent representations about beef imports from producers, supermarkets, burger chains and so on. The position beggars belief, and our farmers and beef producers do not understand how it came into being. However, given the sensitivity of the problem—which, because of the imprecision of the Florence agreement and the position bequeathed by the former Prime Minister, has as much to do with politics as with science—we have no choice but to work within the framework. I hope that we will be able to bring good news to the House soon.

Mr. Bruce: Will the Minister undertake to review the way in which compensation is paid, so as to ensure that those who have got nothing might at least be considered?

Mr. Rooker: We are reviewing all policy and all actions related to the situation we have inherited. We are giving the House information on figures and our policy objectives within the inherited framework, so that we can carry the whole House with us.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.